It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

God VS. the Bible

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I have been thinking about the many discussions we have regarding the Bible, God, and varying interpretations of each.

If the Bible is a Path to the Divine, why do so many people treat the Bible itself as the destination? Its a collection of Books, some better and more honest than others, but books nonetheless. Its purpose is to point to the Divine, not be the resting place of God.

When did a book replace the journey, or why......I dont recall any major prophet, or Jesus or Mohammud or Moses or Elijah or Ruth or Magdelene yakking out of previous books to the multitudes...they acted ; fed, housed, clothed, healed, cared for and sought personal relation with the Divine. They took personal action and from that, became what they are.

So my question ; Is reading the Bible slowly replacing what used to be spiritual involvement?
Are people being taught to become little more than scribes, instead of attaining a relationship with God....




posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   
RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!

You cannot make your beleifs and your whole spirituality based on a book written 2000 years ago.
Find your true spirituality inside you.....you can do ANYTHING! the organised religions and their saint book wants to keep you away from the truth for their onw purpose and control....saying that you are inferior to god, that god wants you to be like this, that god wil punish you...it's all BS
That is why there are so many religions...no one is better than the other, that is why you should not put to much faith into them...see how they are still powerful now!? Because people are blinds that listen to blinds. the best faith is in yourself and see god as loving and never ever fear god

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolmakerIf the Bible is a Path to the Divine, why do so many people treat the Bible itself as the destination? Its a collection of Books, some better and more honest than others, but books nonetheless. Its purpose is to point to the Divine, not be the resting place of God.

When did a book replace the journey, or why......I dont recall any major prophet, or Jesus or Mohammud or Moses or Elijah or Ruth or Magdelene yakking out of previous books to the multitudes...they acted ; fed, housed, clothed, healed, cared for and sought personal relation with the Divine. They took personal action and from that, became what they are.

What an absolutely fabulous question backed by deep sentiment! In reflection, religious perspective does seem to have reduced the creator himself to a position of lesser import.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
On the other hand, the books of the bible do provide some context with which to base a relationship with, and faith in God. It provides examples of deeds and miracles and messages he has sent mankind. IOW, it's a good starting point.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Faith comes by hearing the word of God.

If you go ahead and read it, you will see that Jesus Christ commands us to keep His word

He said to make diciples of all nations. To preach the word of God. To be more like God.
It is also said that anyone claiming to be a christian, but teaching different than the bible, is a false prophet



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
what jesus said was to feed the hungry, house the homeless, care for the infirmed. If you wish to see God, look after your neighbor first. I dont recall a litmus test to see if a person believed in God....jesus simply healed them, fed them, housed them. We have strayed far from the path laid out before us.

The Bible is NOT god. It is a great starting point to find the path, but it is certainly not a substitute for a relationship with the Divine. And dont forget jesus is a part of the Path as well, not the destination either. I am not sure what would be made of the focus on him, instead of God.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolmaker
I am not sure what would be made of the focus on him, instead of God.


Christians believe the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. THe New Testament is his record. He tells the faithful through this book how to live their life according to the will of God. So the only way a person can be saved and reach the gates of heaven is through Jesus.

John 14:6

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


Yes, as i said he is part of the path, not the destination.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolmaker
Yes, as i said he is part of the path, not the destination.


Jesus is not part of the path, he is the path, the only path. He is also more than the guy that gave us directions to find God, he is part of God. He is part of the Holy Trinity, consisting of the father the son and the Holy Spirit. Together these three things make up God.

I took your words to mean Jesus was the traffic cop that directed you down the road to God. When in fact he is more than this he is partially God so he is partially the destination.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Jesus answered them and said, 'My doctrine is not mine, but His who sent me.' "

John 14:24 "He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but The Father's who sent me."

John 12:49 "For I have not spoken on my own authority; but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak."


John 4:34 "Jesus said to them, 'My food is to do the will of Him who sent me, and to accomplish His work.' "

John 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me."

Luke 22:42 "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from me; nevertheless not my will, but Yours, be done."

Matthew 20:23 "...But sitting at my right hand or my left is not mine to give. That is for those to whom it has been reserved by my Father."


John 5:19 "Verily, verily I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do..."

John 5:30 "I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is righteous, because I do not seek my own will but the will of the Father who sent me."

John 8:42 "Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but He sent me.' "

John 15:2 "My Father takes away every branch in me that bears not fruit; he purges it; that it may bring forth more fruit."

John 8:31 "You are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God”


Jesus does not assume the Role of God, but defers to God that sent him. In fact, if you took only what jesus does and says in the Bible, and compared it to what others say he said and did, you would come up with two different versions of what jesus is.
Jesus points away from himself and to God. why the church refuses this is beyond me. It is clear that Jesus had little interest is assuming the role of God, but to provide a Path to relationship with God.



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by toolmaker
In fact, if you took only what jesus does and says in the Bible, and compared it to what others say he said and did, you would come up with two different versions of what jesus is.
Jesus points away from himself and to God. why the church refuses this is beyond me. It is clear that Jesus had little interest is assuming the role of God, but to provide a Path to relationship with God.


So you don't believe in the Holy Trinity? There is no doubt Jesus refers to his father in the scripture but this doesn't mean he is not part of God.

John 10:25-30

Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one.”



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
When I read that the wedding at Canaa was suggested to be Jesus and Mary Magdalene's union, I very meticulously reread the account.
It is hard to refute that the most sensible and literal conclusion, requiring the least mental gymnastics, is that the wedding is His.
Of course many will point to John 2:3, which states Jesus and his disciples had also been invited.
So, if that is all you need to hear to discount the notion of it being His wedding, there is no use reading further........note that it is John who shares this.
To summarize my reasons for thinking Jesus and Mary Magdalene were betrothed:

1. Mother Mary takes charge of supplying the wine when it ran out, an odd thing for a guest to do, when tradition is that the groom's family does so.
2. The couple who are married at Canaa, are curiously anonymous. Why?
3. Jesus supplies the wine, and the mc praises the groom, thereby supporting the traditional responsibility is the groom's family.
John 2:11 states that this is the 1st miracle, reveals Jesus' glory, and the disciples believed in Him.
4. Nowhere in the NT does it mention Jesus' marital status, one way or the other..........why? A valid question, I feel.
5. Three, not one or two, three times He is called Rabbi, a title which has as a firm prerequisite that the man be wedded.
6. So.....if He is not wedded, why does no one notice the obvious and comment on the contradiction?
7. Jesus preached that marriage is good, and divorce is bad. In this case, we are asked to believe that He did not take His own advice,
on top of the half dozen previous suggestive points. I look at Him as a do as I do, not do as I say kind of teacher, how do you see Him?

8. At the empty tomb, who would you predict would arrive at the tomb first that morning? Those who were closest to Him would.
Luke 24:10 "It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James........."
John 1:29 "Behold the lamb of God" This is John the Baptist being quoted, and the lamb of God he is referring to is Jesus.
Revelations 21:9, (note the similar verse numbers, considering both chapters are by John). "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the lamb's wife."

It is clear that Mary is very close to Him, and that John, the sole recorder of the Canaa wedding is also very close to Him.
Did you know that Giovanna is the feminine form of Giovanni? Iohannas is the feminine for Iohannes, and Joanna is the feminine form of John, all three are examples of the same name, John. Interestingly, Joan is not from John. Just the name Joanna.
John writes Revelations, John describes the crucifixion quite differently than the other 3 'synoptic?' gospels, (synoptic, of one eye....lol)
In the KJAV, Luke 3:27 which is Jesus' dad's lineage, (else why put it in there?), it reads...." Which was the son of Joanna, which was the SON of Rhesa."



posted on Feb, 13 2005 @ 10:32 PM
link   
If I am not mistaken when Jesus first spoke in his home town of Galillie he quoted a verse from the book of Isaiah. When he returned from his 40 day and night fasting. He quoted Isaiah 61:1 in luke chapter four.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
When I read that the wedding at Canaa was suggested to be Jesus and Mary Magdalene's union, I very meticulously reread the account.
It is hard to refute that the most sensible and literal conclusion, requiring the least mental gymnastics, is that the wedding is His.
Of course many will point to John 2:3, which states Jesus and his disciples had also been invited.
So, if that is all you need to hear to discount the notion of it being His wedding
there is no use reading further........note that it is John who shares this.
To summarize my reasons for thinking Jesus and Mary Magdalene were betrothed:

1. Mother Mary takes charge of supplying the wine when it ran out, an odd thing for a guest to do, when tradition is that the groom's family does so.
2. The couple who are married at Canaa, are curiously anonymous. Why?
3. Jesus supplies the wine, and the mc praises the groom, thereby supporting the traditional responsibility is the groom's family.
John 2:11 states that this is the 1st miracle, reveals Jesus' glory, and the disciples believed in Him.
4. Nowhere in the NT does it mention Jesus' marital status, one way or the other..........why? A valid question, I feel.
5. Three, not one or two, three times He is called Rabbi, a title which has as a firm prerequisite that the man be wedded.
6. So.....if He is not wedded, why does no one notice the obvious and comment on the contradiction?
7. Jesus preached that marriage is good, and divorce is bad. In this case, we are asked to believe that He did not take His own advice,
on top of the half dozen previous suggestive points. I look at Him as a do as I do, not do as I say kind of teacher, how do you see Him?

8. At the empty tomb, who would you predict would arrive at the tomb first that morning? Those who were closest to Him would.
Luke 24:10 "It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James........."
John 1:29 "Behold the lamb of God" This is John the Baptist being quoted, and the lamb of God he is referring to is Jesus.
Revelations 21:9, (note the similar verse numbers, considering both chapters are by John). "Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the lamb's wife."

It is clear that Mary is very close to Him, and that John, the sole recorder of the Canaa wedding is also very close to Him.
Did you know that Giovanna is the feminine form of Giovanni? Iohannas is the feminine for Iohannes, and Joanna is the feminine form of John, all three are examples of the same name, John. Interestingly, Joan is not from John. Just the name Joanna.
John writes Revelations, John describes the crucifixion quite differently than the other 3 'synoptic?' gospels, (synoptic, of one eye....lol)
In the KJAV, Luke 3:27 which is Jesus' dad's lineage, (else why put it in there?), it reads...." Which was the son of Joanna, which was the SON of Rhesa."



LOL

That is so funny

"Of course many will point to John 2:3, which states Jesus and his disciples had also been invited.... "

Translation.
If that fact is all you will need to disbelieve my speculation then dont read any further.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Ill say it once, Ill say it again. Live the words, dont read them.....
Listen with your hearts and not with your eyes. For I can assure you that this round of Gods plan has precautions in place and those that seek to end it shall never begin the Journey. Their endeveor is lost before it was ever undertaken. There is no hell. But the lord may deem that you can go and seek comfort with your bible. And as you sit, waitng to enter the gates of heaven, page by page, you will destroy your worldy volumes as it becomes apparent that scripture is not the path, but actions towards your fellow man. No Bible will offer witness to the gates of heaven as clarity of thought, truth, and love for all are the true keys to eternity.

And you can believe that Im not sure where all that just came from. But welcome to my world. God has a plan.

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join