The Bible Explained. A work in progress.
1. New Testament Explanations:
2. Two explanations for those who are followers of Eastern Religions.
3. Old Testament explanations:
1. New Testament Explanations:
Quite often the written scripture was an abbreviation of the
whole teaching and was used like a cue card. The oral tradition which I
learned was used to complete the written teachings. I know at least 50 or more similar to the following.
The complete version of turning to the other cheek.
Matt 5:39 But I say
unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on
thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
There are two parts of this teaching that never made it to the Bible.
One is that you only have two cheeks. This rule only allows for two
strikes before you strike back. It doesn't mean to keep on being a
victim time and again. So it is not that far removed from the Old
Testament 'An Eye for and an eye and a tooth for a tooth'.
Why the change from the Old Testament? The Old Testament was written
before Rome ran Israel when many foreigners lived throughout the
country. At the time the Old Testament was adopted virtually everyone
in Israel was a Jew and about 99% of them had known their neighbors all
their lives. If you lived in Israel back then you knew what to do and
what not to do. You knew when a transgression occurred and if you
transgressed someone then you knew what you had done wrong and what you
deserved. When you got punished it was done.
However, at the time of Jesus towns had sprung up and Rome was running
the show. Some tolerance had to come into play or a full sized riot
could ensue. That is exactly what happened in 66 AD when Greeks
sacrificed birds in front of a Caesarean synagogue and started the First Jewish-Roman War which ended in the destruction of Israel. It's very likely the Greeks
didn't know any better. They probably had no idea that they were
insulting anyone but it lead to the revolt which resulted in
the destruction of Israel. Interestingly the Jewish Religion now
allows for three transgressions before they react. That is the first
The second part is to realize that if you have been struck on the cheek
then the other person has not transgressed, you are probably the one
who has transgressed on them! After all, a strike on a cheek is and
always has been the universal reaction to a insult or transgression.
And obviously you have made a transgression for him to have struck you.
After the first strike on the cheek you must find out why you were
struck as you may very well owe the person an apology. See how
easy it is to transgress on another and not even realize it? Even when
you have been slapped in the face because of it! (I'll bet you didn't
see that one coming!)
Why did Jesus get so upset at
the Sons of Zebedee, John and James, when they asked to sit at his
right and left hand in the kingdom of God? Mark 10:35-41
10:35-41 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him.
"Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask."
"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked.
They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."
"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said. "Can you drink the
cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?"
"We can," they answered. Jesus said to them, "You will drink the cup I
drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with,
but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared."
When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John.
did he get angry? Because the brother that would have sat at Jesus'
left hand would have usurped Jesus' rightful position at the right hand
Mat 20:20-24 Then the mother of Zebedee's sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.
"What is it you want?" he asked. She said, "Grant that one of these two
sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your
"You don't know what you are asking," Jesus said to them. "Can you
drink the cup I am going to drink?" "We can," they answered.
Jesus said to them, "You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at
my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those
for whom they have been prepared by my Father."
When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers.
Why is it that their mother asks the question of Jesus in the Book of Matthew (Matthew 20:20-24) but in Mark the sons ask the question directly?
The 'mother of the sons of Zebedee' has passed away and it was her
spirit who actually asked Jesus. Matthew is written for the Jews which
believe in spirits while Mark was written for the Greeks and Romans who
did not often believe in them. Hence her presence is in Matthew but not in Mark. This is
also why she is only referred to as the 'mother of the sons of Zebedee'
and not the 'wife of Zebedee'. Her position as wife, which is a position
given by man and not by God, ended when she died but a mother is a
This is also why she is present at Jesus' resurrection
in Matthew but is absent in Mark.
did Jesus get angry at all the Apostles and promise them all
crucifiction as well? Because their job was to keep others from
usurping Jesus' power and they had failed to stop the two brothers. Hey, if you take a position
to protect the most valuable person alive then you had better be
willing to face the just punishment if you fail.
What or who was Jesus talking about when he said this:
"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and
all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he
will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep
from the goats,
Mat 25:33 and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
Then the King will say to those at his right hand,
'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you
from the foundation of the world;
for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty
and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you
visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'
Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did
we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
Mat 25:38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
Mat 25:39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'
And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you,
as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to
Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart
from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and
Mat 25:42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked
and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'
Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see
thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and
did not minister to thee?'
Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as
you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.'
Mat 25:46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." RSV
Jesus was at one with John the Baptist and these trials and
tribulations are what John went through. This is why he said: 'Truly, I say to you, as you
did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
John the Baptist was the least of his brethren as he had not as of then
ascended to heaven.
John was the only one that was so hungry he had to endure bee stings
for their honey and eat locusts. He was the one that no clothes and had
to wear a camel skin. John was the only one who was in prison. The point being
is that the treatment of John was/is the precedence by which Jesus would
later judge the world.
This next part kind of goes along with the above. It shows that Jesus
and John were considered on par with each other. At least by Jesus.
17:12 But I say unto you, That Elias is
come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever
they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
Mat 17:13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
As far as Jesus was concerned whatever John the
Baptist went through Jesus would similarly go through. (What he did not
tell you is that then the entire society, the Jews, goes through
virtually the same thing also.)
John and Jesus were originally seen in a similar light to Elijah and Elisha (as
well as Moses and Aaron). A sort of 'dynamic duo'. Jesus even
compared himself to Elisha (Eliseus)
and John to Elijah (Elias above). It was Constantine I that
changed it all in the 4th century. It is known that he wanted to be
seen as paired with Jesus so he had John the Baptist all but removed
from Christianity. After Constantine's death he was dutifully removed
from most of the records but John never regained his former position.
I'll show you an example of this.
But Herod the tetrarch, being reproved by him (John
the Baptist) for Herodias his brother Philip's wife, and for all the
evils which Herod had done,
Luk 3:20 Added yet this above all, that he shut up John in prison.
The 'Added yet this above all'
implies that there was a list of reasons for Herod imprisoning John the
Baptist yet it is missing. What happened to the list? That is what I
would like to know. It was there the last time I looked but that was
over 1900 years ago. As I recall, it was a pretty long list. Somewhere
along the line it was taken out of the Bible. Likely on the orders of
This shows clearly that something was removed that had to do with John the Baptist.
Have you wondered how to get into heaven? Well, you have just read how.
Your good treatment of those who are of God is the one and only
requirement. There are not any other requirements than that and nothing
else can get you in. Adore the Pope and all the saints if you
feel like it. It won't help you get into heaven one iota if you don't adhere to the very
simple instructions that Jesus so clearly and succinctly laid out in
Matthew 25:31-46. Principally, it's not how you treat Jesus which gets
you into heaven, it's how you treat his friends (who are with him in
heaven) that matters.
If you don't want to get into heaven then don't worry about it.
(Notice how you just read right through Matthew 25:31-46 without
realizing it is all you need to get to heaven according to Jesus. And
it is so simple. No throwing 10% of your earnings to a church,
converting people, etc.)
An explanation of a Revelation (Revelation 8 and part of 9))
2. Two explanations for those who are followers of Eastern Religions.
Who was Jesus (from an Eastern viewpoint)?
The answer is pretty straightforward if you know where to look. It is right at the beginning of Hebrews.
Hbr 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his]
Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made
It is also located in Colossians 1:16
Col 1:16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in
earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions,
or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for
References to Jesus being the Son of God are also found throughout the New Testament.
There are two elements found here which are important. One is that
Jesus is the Son of God and that Jesus made the worlds (universe).
In the Eastern heirachy at the top is Brahman. 'Brahman is the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine..' This is what the West refers to as God. 'Brahmā is said also to be the son of the Supreme Being, Brahman (God)..' This is the first element. From Brahman came Brahma who created the universe or 'worlds'.
This is common knowledge and it is the second element. By the way,
Buddhism was well known in Israel and a popular religion at the time.
So Jesus was an incarnation of Brahma.
Who was John the Baptist from an Eastern viewpoint?
The answer is near the start of the Gospel of John
John 1:44-1.51 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses
in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of
And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto
him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree,
I saw thee.
Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under
the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall
see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon
the Son of man.
This entire entry seems to be rather strange, doesn't it?
is there a story about someone named Nathanael between two stories
about John the Baptist? Who is this Nathanael that John's disciples
seem to want to impress?
is none other than the code name or alias for John the Baptist. He was
often a wanted man so his identity was at times kept a secret by those
who followed him by calling him 'Nathanael'. In any case it did not
work. He was eventually arrested and killed by King Herod.
What else proves John was Nathanael? The Bible states 'There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.' (John 1:6)So essentially John was a gift of God to mankind. Nathanael was a Hebrew name and it means 'God has given' or a 'gift of God', so John was Nathanael.
As far as Jesus saying that Nathanael/John had 'no guile',
John the Baptist is about the only person in the New Testament that had
'no guile'. In fact he got his head chopped off because of his straightforward lack of
some schools of thought by modern Bible interpreters that Nathanael was
one of the 12 Apostles but that is only an assumption with not a bit of
evidence to back it up.
Then why is John (aka Nathanael) so impressed by Jesus having seen him
under a fig tree? Many people must have seen him under various trees
but for some reason John (Nathanael) is exceedingly in awe of Jesus's
ability to recall seeing John under this particular type of tree. It
makes no sense at all without an explanation which is next:
harkens to the more recent Tibetan practice of the recognition of Tulkus,
which are the reincarnations of great saint and sages, including that
of the Dalai Lama. That is what this entry in the Bible is about.
was stating that he recognized John the Baptist as having been the
Buddha. The key is that the Buddha achieved enlightenment under a fig
tree, a Ficus Religiosa, or Bodhi Tree.
John was congratulating Jesus on his great skill at being able to see who others had been in their previous lives. In this case Jesus had recognized John as having been the Buddha in a previous life. The Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu.
people don't realize is that it takes a great person to be able to see another persons past lives. Hence Jesus was great in the eyes of John the Baptist.
So John the Baptist was an incarnation of Vishnu.
Why was this information kept a secret in the scriptures? Because the King had murdered John the
Baptist and he would have gotten very mad if we had accused him of
murdering the Buddha. We were already being killed off left and right
by the likes of Saul (Paul) and had no wish to make it any the worse.
But probably the bigger reason is that even then reincarnation was a
heated subject it was seen as best not to teach it to the general
public. Perhaps it was even more heated then than it is today so we hid
3. Old Testament explanations:
I also recall memories about the Old Testament mainly from other lives
as one or more of the prophets which I will include below. (8-20-08
This is one I sent in an Email today to a lady which I decided was
important enough to put here. In fact I think it is considered the
greatest unexplained mystery of the Old Testament.)
What is the Song of Songs or Song of Solomon about? (Added Aug. 2, 2014)Lamsa OT - Song of Solomon It is
about a couple that reincarnate time and time again to be together.
They are what we would now call soulmates. Sometimes they are blond
northerners, sometime dark, sometimes they switch sexes and sometime
they even incarnate as deer. At another time at 8:1 'he' is a little
girl who finds her soulmate as a man in the market or street so she
takes him to her mothers bed and 'into the chamber of her that bore
me'. At other times 8:9 she is between lives so he builds a temple to
her. She is also one of the hindu godesses. He even thought of
abdicating to be alone with her. 8:7 'If a man would give all the
substance of his house (possessions) for love, people would mock him.
As a you read the Lamsa Old Aramaic translation with that in mind you will see it.
couple? Who were they? Of course it was King Soloman and the Queen of
Sheba. And yes, he almost left his empire and all his wives to be alone
with the Queen of Sheba.
Why did God tell Abraham to kill his son Isaac and at the last moment prevent it?
Briefly. God told him to do what his wife said to do. Abrahams wife
told him to get rid of Ishmael and his mother Hagar. He could have done
the traditional thing and sent her back to her family or given her land
and livestock for being such a faithful concubine but what does he do?
He gives her a goatskin filled with water and pushes her and Ishmael
out to a certain death in the desert which would occur about 3 days
after they ran out of water.
Gen 21:9-19 But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking,
and she said to Abraham, "Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for
that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son
The matter distressed Abraham greatly because it concerned his son.
But God said to him, "Do not be so distressed about the boy and your
maidservant. Listen to whatever Sarah tells you, because it is through
Isaac that your offspring [fn] will be reckoned.
I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring."
Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and
gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off
with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of
When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes.
Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she
thought, "I cannot watch the boy die." And as she sat there nearby, she
[fn] began to sob.
God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from
heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid;
God has heard the boy crying as he lies there.
Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation."
Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and
filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink NIV
Gen 22:1-13 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.
Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and
go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on
one of the mountains I will tell you about."
Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took
with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough
wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him
On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.
He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy
go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."
Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son
Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of
them went on together,
Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?"
Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where
is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt
offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an
altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and
laid him on the altar, on top of the wood.
Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.
But the angel of the Lord called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied.
"Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him.
Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me
your son, your only son."
Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram [fn]caught by its
horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt
offering instead of his son.
was when the water ran out that Ishmael realized that he was going to
die in about three days. And why? Because of the words of an archangel.
Then at the very last moment the archangel saved his life by preventing
his father from killing him.
is what gets me. People say the archangel was very mean for having
Issac's father take his son to a mountain top and almost kill him.
People don't see this as a lesson of God or what we call karma.
In the eyes of both sons Abraham
was told by an archangel to essentially murder them. For three days both sons knew their death was soon to occur
at the hand of their father. Then at the last moment Abraham was
prevented from killing his two sons by the same archangel. (An angel of God
directs Hagar, Ishmael's mother, to discover a spring at the last
moment and an Angel prevents Abraham from killing Isaac at the last
Do you see how similar both of these events were? The main aspects are identical.
did it happen? God did not like what Abraham had done to his faithful
concubine and her son. To just push her out to a certain death so that
he would never have to think of her or Ishmael again was untenable. He
needed to learn a lesson. God wanted Abraham to have to live the rest
of his life with a son who knew his own father was willing to murder
him. It's what is often refered to as karma.
It was Abraham who was mean, not Gabriel. Gabriel only did what was necessary.
Also, it was a test when God said to Abraham
"Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the
region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the
mountains I will tell you about.". This was to determine what
Abraham's intent had been toward Ishmael and Hagar. Abraham could have
said to God 'I have another son' (Ishmael) but he was certain that he
had killed him and his mother. This was proof to God of Abrahams intent to
God is not so brutal as most people believe. It was Abraham who was
the brutal one. God simply did what was needed to set Abraham on the
right path by making him also bear the pain of a father who was willing to murder his own son.
Did the destruction of Jericho really occur in light of the recent archaeological
discoveries which fail to locate any destruction ot these towns at the time?
Yes it certainly did occur. What is not recorded is the fact that
Jericho was moved several times. When they would move the
center of government they would take the name of the city with them. This is the
key and what is missing from the records.
It was a very common thing to do this, it happened a lot. Sometimes
they would swap the names of the two cities, sometimes the old main
city would get a new name and sometimes it would be destroyed.
Sometimes they would build entirely new cities and sometimes just use a
pre existing town or city.
They might move the city (and the name) when a river would change it's
path. They would move it to a more centrally located town when the
empire would expand or contract. They would move it to a more easily defended location when
a neighbor got powerful and threatened to attack them. The biggest
reason of all for moving cities was that the Kings wife wanted to
move it, sometimes on nothing more than a whim. To be fair she usually
had a good reason. Often she would say the area was too cursed and so
they needed to move. This would occur when the wells got fouled (due to
excrement that had seeped in) and disease became rife. The disease was
thought to mean that the city had accumulated so many curses that a
move to a 'curse free' location was needed. In all these cases the new
town would be expropriated and given the name of the old city.
Archaeologist don't even think about this possibility because the
cities they live in have names that are literally and figuratively
carved in stone. It would be impossible in todays world to change
all the references, signs and documents. Back then it was no problem.
Maybe the city's name was carved in stone but it was probably only on
one stone and that was above the main gate into town. However, that
stone just got taken down and put up at the new town.
16:34 In Ahab's time, Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho. He laid its
foundations at the cost of his firstborn son Abiram, and he set up its
gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, in accordance with the
word of the Lord spoken by Joshua son of Nun.
In the case of Jericho it was totally destroyed and then about 5 centuries later a town with the same name was built. However, we do not know if it was built in the same place as the old one or somewhere else.
All rights reserved.
© J Pinil, Inc. 2002-8