I was never raised in a family who lived by the Bible; they said they were christians, but they only lived by the Bible when they wanted to.  Now that I have started a family, I want to live the right way.  I have started to read the Bible from the beginning, and I found it a little hard to understand, so I went and bought myself a child’s Bible.  That may sound silly, but it has helped me, so I can go back and understand the Holy Bible.  My question is: I know God created the world. Jesus Christ is His Son that gave His life for our sins. The thing that I want to know is: is Jesus a separate person, or is it God who lived in Jesus?  And also, who is the Holy Ghost?

Sincerely,
Putting The Pieces Together

Dear Putting The Pieces Together,

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct Beings.  The easiest way to see this is to look at the baptism of Jesus.  At Jesus’ baptism, Jesus came out of the water, the Holy Spirit descended like a dove, and the Father spoke from heaven (Lk 3:21-22).  All three of Them are God.  Jesus is described as deity in Jhn 1:1.  The Holy Spirit is described as deity in 1 Cor 2:11 and Gen 1:2.  And last, but not least, the Father is described as deity in Gen 1:1 and numerous other locations.  They are each distinct entities, but They are one in purpose.  We will try and summarize Their responsibilities:

The Father – The Father has total authority to plan and oversee the salvation of mankind.  The Father was the one that sent Jesus at the proper time to die on the cross (Gal 4:4).  The Father answers our prayers (Lk 11:2).  The Father provides for the needs of mankind (Lk 12:30).  He is the great master builder and planner of our salvation.

The Son – Jesus made the Father’s plan happen.  Jesus emptied Himself and became a human (Php 2:4-8).  Jesus is God’s son because He was miraculously born (Matt 1:18).  His blood cleanses us from all sin (1 Jn 1:7).  He is the head of the church and its Savior (Eph 1:22, Col 1:18).  If the Father was the architect of our salvation, Jesus is the carpenter… which is ironic, since He actually was one! (Matt 13:55)

The Holy Spirit – The Holy Spirit is the most misunderstood of all the Godhead.  We have answered many questions on His role.  If you want an in-depth look at the Holy Spirit, read “What The Holy Spirit Does”.  For the sake of brevity, we will simply say that the Holy Spirit’s primary job was to create the Bible and keep it preserved throughout all time.  It is the Holy Spirit that guided the minds of the apostles as they wrote down the words of the Bible (Jhn 14:26, 1 Cor 2:13).  If the Father was the architect, and Jesus was the carpenter, then the Holy Spirit is the realtor.  He made sure that everyone would know what Jesus did and how to be saved through Christ’s blood.

Hopefully, that helps give you a basic idea of how the Godhead works.

(This is a follow-up to “Only One Cog In The Machine”)

Thanks for your reply.  This is very interesting history.  How is it possible that Paul never mentions what he heard about Jesus in Jerusalem since they were both about the same age?  His story starts as a persecutor of the early Jewish followers at the behest of the Sadduccee establishment, but Paul was around for years before that when Jesus was still alive, and he never mentions having heard of Him or having known of Him when they were both in Judea.

How many of the other preachers and teachers does Christianity believe were required to have revelations like Paul? And if there were so many other apostles and preachers, why does Christianity focus almost exclusively on Paul's epistles?

I know there are also a few other epistles (Jude, John, James, Hebrews) that Paul didn't write, but presumably other preachers also had congregations they were working with, so what happened to them and their epistles, and why don't people like Polycarp get included?

Although his congregations may have known about the history, doesn't it seem unusual that Paul does not include an occasional reference to any of the historical events or sayings of Jesus (such as "Remember what we heard from our Lord on the Mount, let us recall the events as Christ was led to Calvary, do not forget the greatness of His mother Mary, let us recall what He told His followers in Galilee," etc.)?

Plus, since Acts identifies Paul as a student of Rabbi Gamaliel, why don't we find any references to anything he ever learned at the feet of the greatest Jewish sage of the day, the head of the Sanhedrin?  Presumably, there were great and valuable teachings and ethical aphorisms that he heard, not to mention relevant issues regarding the Torah; yet, Paul never mentions a single one.

Sincerely,
Passionate About Paul

Dear Passionate About Paul,

You are asking why Paul didn't say this or that – the answer is simple... he did say other things instead.  It is impossible to explain why Paul mentioned certain facts about Christ's life and left others out.  The short answer is that he mentioned what he did because that was necessary to make the point he was making at the time.  The Bible isn't a compilation of every detail and every sermon that was ever preached in the first century.  In fact, John specifically says there wouldn't be enough ink to write down all that Jesus did (Jhn 21:25).  The Bible includes what God believed was necessary for mankind to know in order to live and be godly (2 Pet. 1:3).  Polycarp, like many other later writers, was not inspired, and his works, though illuminating and insightful, are not directly from the mind of God.

(This post is a follow-up to “All My Children”)

Thanks. A follow-up: so these "sons of God" are humans, but some assume them to be angels because in the Contemporary English Version of the Bible it reads “More and more people were born, until finally they spread all over the earth. Some of their daughters were so beautiful that supernatural beings came down and married the ones they wanted."  Why then does this version say "supernatural beings", if they were only men?

Sincerely,
Text Perplexed

Dear Text Perplexed,

There are two things to consider when choosing a Bible translation:

1. 1. Accuracy
2. 2. Readability

As you have noticed with the Contemporary English Version, the easier a translation is to read, the less accurate it becomes – and the more accurate a translation is, the more difficulty you will have in reading it.  The key is to find the right balance between readability and accuracy.  There are three types of translations: word-for-word translations, thought-for-thought translations, and paraphrase translations.

Paraphrase translations don’t even attempt to be accurate; all they want to do is make the Bible easy to read.  We never recommend a paraphrase translation.  In our opinion, the Contemporary English Version is a paraphrase.  It is geared toward simplifying the Bible to a level that is easy for grade schoolers, English as a second language readers, and the translators describe it as being designed for “uncompromising simplicity”.  That is why you are having so many translation problems with it.

Thought-for-thought translations try and take the original language and translate it using what the translators think is the same idea or concept that the Greek and Hebrew languages were trying to convey.  The NRSV, NIRV, and TNIV are all though-for-thought translations.  The NIV (currently the most popular version) is a mix between a word-for-word and a thought-for-thought – we have a lengthy article on the NIV translation that will give you more insight into that particular translation (click here to go to that post).  Thought-for-thought translations are better than paraphrasing, but they still remove the exact words of Jesus and His apostles and replace them with someone’s best guess at what they might have said if they had spoken in English.

Last, but not least, we have word-for-word translations.  Word-for-word translations are exactly what they sound like – they do their best to directly translate every word from the Greek and Hebrew into English.  There are currently four major word-for-word translations available: King James Version (KJV), New King James Version (NKJV), American Standard Version (ASV), and New American Standard Version (NASB).  God tells us that every word was directly conveyed from God to the original Bible writers (1 Cor 2:13).  Since God made a point of divinely inspiring every word of the Bible, we here at AYP only feel comfortable using a translation that keeps those words intact.  Personally, we find the NASB and NKJV to be very readable and highly accurate.  Having read the New Testament in both the Greek and English (a couple of our AYP writers can read Koine Greek), we have found those two versions to be very sound.

To sum up, if you really want to make sure you are reading what God authored, make sure to ask for a word-for-word translation.

Why do christians accept the New Testament canon?

Sincerely,
Authenticating Orders

Dear Authenticating Orders,

The question of what books to include in the Bible and what books to exclude as false is a major issue – and it is an issue that the early christians had to face.  Twenty-seven books are included in the New Testament canon (the word ‘canon’, when applied to Scriptures, means ‘the officially accepted list of books’), and each one of these books is documented by early christians as being a divinely-inspired piece of literature.  In other words, the early christians believed that God wrote it.

The key to understanding why some books are included in the Bible and other books (even books from the same time period) are excluded is to remember that the Bible claims to be God’s Book (2 Pet 1:19-21).  The early christians lived during the time when these books were being written, and they were fully aware of who was doing the writing.  Today, we can’t tell which religious documents were written by apostles and which documents were written by heretics… but the early christians certainly could!  If someone claimed that a letter was written by the apostle Paul, all they had to do to verify the authenticity of the letter was to ask Paul for themselves.  The early christians were in the best position to differentiate between authentic apostolic writings and other manmade documents.  This is exactly why the early church quickly adopted the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, and they have been almost universally accepted as the only New Testament books ever since.  Numerous historical documents verify that the New Testament canon that we use today was accepted, read, collected, distributed, and used by the early christians from very early on.  People who seek to say that they have “found” some new Bible books that have been missing from the canon have to prove that their books were accepted by christians from the beginning – no one has been able to do that.

Is it the case that the ideas of the Christ and salvation were not taught exclusively by Paul since he himself said that he only wanted to preach in places that had not yet heard the Gospel?  Plus, there were others such as Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos, etc.  He also said that there were those who taught another Jesus or gospel, others who relied on other people such as Cephas, and even those who believed only in Christ without any preachers.  Or was it the case that he was the leader of the entire movement because he was the one who claimed a revelation… whereas others had received traditions?

And is this the reason he never mentions Gospel stories or even mentions Mary, Pilate, Calvary, Golgotha, or Herod?  And when he mentions the apostles who knew Jesus in person, why does he not express any special reverence or awe for them at all?

Sincerely,
Passionate About Paul

Dear Passionate About Paul,

Paul was only one of thirteen different apostles teaching Christianity and only one of countless preachers and teachers.  You are right that Paul taught in new territories that others hadn’t reached (Rom 15:20), and the Lord chose to use Paul’s letters for a large portion of the New Testament canon, but that doesn’t make Paul the primary preacher of Christianity.  In fact, the first sermon was preached by Peter (Acts 2:14), and Paul didn’t even begin to preach until several years later.  Paul was originally opposed to Christianity (Acts 26:10) and wasn’t converted until the Lord spoke to him on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:1-5).  Paul’s letters don’t contain every detail of Christ’s law because Paul didn’t write all of Christ’s law!  Paul’s letters were written to already established congregations that were aware of the story of Christ’s life and didn’t need him to reiterate every detail.  As far as Paul’s lack of reverence for the other apostles – the other apostles didn’t want reverence; as Peter said, “I, myself, am also a man.” (Acts 10:26).