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.

 

The Bible, are we looking at it from the right angle?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sight2reality

We to this day cannot fully translate all portions of the bible. Original texts are damged and untranslatable. If you look at direct translations, you will see brackets.

For example:

[steve ran after bob]

Those brackets occur VERY OFTEN!!!!!! Go ahead and look for yourself. They are placed where the interpretor was unable to translate the words due to damage of the paper, or poor understanding of the language.

Whats in the brackets? The interpretors opinion of what he thinks was to be written.

How in the world do you expect to be able to use this bible code? Not to mention that many of the claims of words and phrases derived from this "code" actually come from fully translated english versions of the bible, and not the original text anyway.

When you want to see something.....often times you will. Resulting in things like "bible code".



I sure would like to know what translation you are reading; there are no brackets in my bible and where did you get your info on not having a fully translated bible.?




posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
The instances I belive being refered to as of questionable translation can be found in several translations:

Todays English version and "Gods Word" both have foot notes denoting reference.

Eg:
Gen 3:24 Reference word is Angels - foot note specifies Or Cherubim.

Gen 4:25 There is a play on words here between Hebrew sheth (Seth) and shalt (given)

Gen 24:30 The last part of verse 29 (in Hebrew) has been placed in verse 30 to express the complex hebrew sentance structure more clearly in english.

Also, some of the Gnostic Texts and lost sea scrolls have notations indicating entire paragraphs have been damaged beyond recognition.

Also worth mentioning is the changes the KJV has undergone in the last 100 years. - If you have your Grandfathers KJV compare it to your own, and you will see that it is not uncorrupted from then as the pronunciation marks on words was intact in the older version.



posted on Jul, 28 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by dancer

With those ideas/concepts I can surely understand anyone questioning any translation of the Bible. I think the best point could be that there are some things that were without a doubt intended to remain pure and unadulterated - those being the Books of moses - The balance are for to allow one a better relationship with G-d.

Definitely don't hesitate further to study the ancient Hebrew language, Dancer~!
It will literally open up the pages of the bible for you in a way I can't do justice to in describing. Suffice it to say that I strongly recommend it--it's a solid investment of your time and attention.

No bible translation is without error--nor are any canons 'complete'. I said in an earlier post that the bible is 100% true and reliable--but I reread that a minute ago and realized it doesn't express what I really meant:

I do not believe that all the RCC or Synod (16--something in Netherlands--Calvinist meeting) 'approved' in their respective canons is absolutely only what we should read--I honestly feel that if one truly seeks truth and has faith in Truth and God, and is, above all, not seeking justification for personal agendas (known as 'issues' to most) but rather the alleviation of those agendas within one's self, that there is no piece of writing that cannot be read with equal safety--and no reason that the truth can't be ferreted out without becoming grossly decieved. It is the limitations of religious 'reading lists' that promote and foster mass deception.

At the same time, I don't believe that every 'apocryphal' document is to be considered scriptural in value. I think that is actually something that each reader can decide for themselves, if they are truly deciding for themselves. I believe in God and in so doing, have no doubt that He will keep me from snares if I trust Him to do so--as He has promised. So far I am certain He has kept me safe, and in my explorations I have found a wealth of truth in every thing I've ever studied--and of course, there are deceptions plenty in all that, too. It's all mixed up.

But I find that it is not the actual facts and data that can be accrued which is false or misrepresented--it is usually, almost always, the matrix within which those facts are arranged, and presented as truth, which forms the basis for deception. Most people confuse the difference between objective and subjective data--since many research in order to directly find the answers, but a few do just gather facts and then 'reason with the LORD' who is the source of answers and provides them with His good pleasure to those that seek such treasure.

[edit on 7/28/2005 by queenannie38]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
the book of revelations is a book that always has been taken with mixed
feelings taking in consideration that the author was never prove to be the
one they credited. Revelations was added to the new statement after a
very long consideration.


Revelation was accepted and placed with the rest of the accepted
books and letters into what we now have as the bible, back ~ 350 by
the Catholic Church. Even then, MANY of the fathers of the church
didn't buy Revelations as being anything of significance or even of
heavenly origin. History of Revelation and 'acceptance' -

New Testament Period and Apostolic Fathers (30-160) -
Revelation considered not canonical. Rejected by just about
everyone. Definately rejected by Polycarp.

Iranaeus to Origen (160-250)
Some acceptance of Revelation. First accepted by Clement of
Alexandria. Rejected by Barococcio Canon c. 206.

Origen to Nicaea (250-325)
Revelation is still disputed, especially in the East.
Rejected by Dionysius.

From 325 to Council of Carthage (397 A.D.)
Revelation is eventually accepted by most at the council.
Rejected by Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John Chrysostom, and
Gregory Nazianzen.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   
History of acceptance of biblical books -

New Testament Period and Apostolic Fathers (30-160)

Gospels: Generally accepted by 130 A.D.
Acts: Scarcely known or quoted
Pauline Corpus : Generally accepted by 130 A.D., yet quotes are rarely introduced as scriptural
Philippians, 1 Tim: Rejected by Justin Martyr
2 Tim, Titus, Philemon: Rejected by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
Hebrews: Not Considered Canonical. Questioned by Clement of Rome, Rejected by Polycarp and Justin Martyr.
1 Peter : Not considered Canonical.
2 Peter: Not considered Canonical, nor cited.
1,2,3 John: Not considered canonical. Rejected by Justine Martyr.
1 John: Questioned by Polycarp
3 John: Rejected by Polycarp
Revelation: Not considered Canonical. Rejected by Polycarp.

Iranaeus to Origen (160-250)
Term 'New Testament' first used by Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria.
Gospels: Accepted.
Acts: Gradually accepted during this time period.
Pauline Corpus: Accepted with some exceptions during this period.
2 Tim: Rejected by Clement of Alexandria.
Philemon: Rejected by Iranaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria.
Hebrews: Not canonical before 4th century in the West. Questioned by Origen. First accepted by Clement of Alexandria.
James: Not considered canonical. First mentioned by Origen. Rejected by Iranaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria.
1 Peter: Gradual acceptance during this time period. First accepted by Iranaeus, Clement of Alexandria.
2 Peter: Not considered canonical. First mentioned by Origen. Rejected by Iranaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria
1 John: Gradual acceptance during this time period. First accepted by Iranaeus. Rejected by Origen.
2 John: Not considered Canonical at this time. Questioned by Origen. Rejected by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria.
3 John: Not considered canonical at this time. Questioned by Origen. Rejected by Iranaeus, Terullian, Clement of Alexandria.
Jude: Gradual acceptance during this time period. Quoted by Clement of Alexandria. Rejected by Origen.
Revelation: Gradual acceptance during this time period. Quoted by Clement of Alexandria. Rejected by Barococcio Canon c. 206
Episle of Barnabas: Quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Origen.
Shepherd of Hermas: Quoted by Iranaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Clement of Alexandria.
The Didache: Quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Origen
The Apocalypse of Peter: Quoted by Clement of Alexandria
The Acts of Paul: Quoted by Origen. Appears in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations.
Gospel of Hebrews: Quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Muratorian Canon (c 190), Excludes Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Includes the Apocalypse of Peter, Wisdom of Solomon.

Origen to Nicaea (250-325)
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corpus: Accepted
Hebrews: Accepted in the East, Still disputed in the west.
James: Disputed in the East, Rejected in the west.
1 Peter: Fairly well accepted
2 Peter: Still disputed
1 John: Fairly well accepted
2,3,John, Jude: Still disputed.
Revelation: Disputed, especially in the East. Rejected by Dionysius.

Council of Nicaea (325)
Questions Canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John and Jude.

From 325 to Council of Carthage (397)
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Corups, 1 Peter, 1 John: Accepted
Hebrews: Eventually accepted in the west.
James: Slow acceptance. Not quoted in West until 350 A.D.
2 Peter: Eventually accepted.
2,3 John, Jude : Eventually accepted.
Revelation: Eventually accepted. Rejected by Cyril of Jerusalem, John Crystostom, Gregory Nazianzen.
Epistle of Barnabas: Quoted by Codex Sinaiticus in late 4th century
Sheperd of Hermas: Quoted by Codex Sinaiticus in late 4th century. Used as textbook for catechumens according to Athanasius.
1 Clement, 2 Clement: Quoted Codex Alexandrinus early 5th century.


[edit on 7/29/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I don't understand the point you're making?

Are we to actually regard these listed men as in a position of authority between ourselves and our High Priest?

If that's not what you are suggesting, are you seeing it as I do, then--that the fact they didn't wholeheartedly welcome the last book of the bible into the canon is pretty good proof its got some truths which threaten their hijacked so-called authority?

Without Revelation, Genesis is incomplete, and the bible would be a 'cliffhanger'. It is a key in the whole puzzle--one that, once solved by man, would not profit the RCC or further their agenda. Especially the parts about 'salvation.' The RCC isn't about salvation, it's about slavery. All religion is bondage, disguised as 'freedom.'



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
A defense of the reliability and cannon of The New Testament

I am giving you all a link to a tremendously well written and logical exposition on the reliabilty of New Testament Cannon by B.B. Warfield, one of the most respected and beloved scholars of the ninteenth century; certainly, no new evidence has come to light that would dissaipate or negate any of the things he had to say a little over a hundred years ago.
A small segment of the article is below - the entire article can be accessed through the link above. Grace & Peace, LS


The Canon of the New Testament was completed when the last authoritative book was given to any church by the apostles, and that was when John wrote the Apocalypse, about A.D. 98. Whether the church of Ephesus, however, had a completed Canon when it received the Apocalypse, or not, would depend on whether there was any epistle, say that of Jude, which had not yet reached it with authenticating proof of its apostolicity. There is room for historical investigation here. Certainly the whole Canon was not universally received by the churches till somewhat later. The Latin church of the second and third centuries did not quite know what to do with the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Syrian churches for some centuries may have lacked the lesser of the Catholic Epistles and Revelation. But from the time of Ireanaeus down, the church at large had the whole Canon as we now possess it. And though a section of the church may not yet have been satisfied of the apostolicity of a certain book or of certain books; and though afterwards doubts may have arisen in sections of the church as to the apostolicity of certain books (as e. g. of Revelation): yet in no case was it more than a respectable minority of the church which was slow in receiving, or which came afterward to doubt, the credentials of any of the books that then as now constituted the Canon of the New Testament accepted by the church at large. And in every case the principle on which a book was accepted, or doubts against it laid aside, was the historical tradition of apostolicity.



[edit on 7/29/2005 by lightseeker]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I appreciate your efforts--however I must tell you that I know about these things, and have researched them in my course of life-time 'God-study'--but they are of no consequence to me as far as matters of truth and scripture.

I don't need any man, no matter how vested by the RCC or any other man-made self-proclaimed agent of God, to tell me what God 'approves' or deems as viable knowledge. I see right through those kind of deceptions, first with my heart and then with opened eyes. I'm not bashing anyone or extolling anyone. I just follow my orders directly: trust God and not in man, not even myself. John 15:26. God sent the Spirit to each of us, He didn't send men with Spirit to guide us. The Spirit is our direct guidance.

I have absolute confidence in the reliability of the New Testament, but have no need to rely on others to tell me this, especially religious men and church fathers. There is only one Father and no one has ever seen Him. That's the truth according to the NT, and so in supporting the truth of the canon, the RCC is exposing themselves as both anti-scriptural and non-sanctioned. All it is a kingdom of contradiction which will be destroyed when the rest of the worldly institutions meet destruction at the end. Not a prudent place to hang one's spiritual hat, so to speak.


[edit on 7/29/2005 by queenannie38]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Er..........

I got a question...

How did this thread go from questioning the accuracy of the perspective that we use when reading the Sacred Texts to a disertation on the cannonization of the texts, complete with their canonization dates?

After spending close to 15 years researching The Judeau-Christian evolution, Gnostism and several other religions, I do not require a refresher cource on the canonisation of the KJV.

I do appreciate the plethera of info.,as well as the willingness to share it, as I am sure someone - somewhere is anxiously seeking it. When they are found they might also enjoy knowing that BIBLE is an abreviation:

B - Basic
I - Instructions
B - Before
L - Leaving
E - Earth

Also, dont forget to mention that G-d and Christ are good guys, Satan is the big bad wolf.

(Couldn't resist.....]
Wait until they find out what the "Seal of Soloman" looks like....


[edit on 7/29/2005 by dancer]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
I appreciate your efforts--however I must tell you that I know about these things, and have researched them in my course of life-time 'God-study'--but they are of no consequence to me as far as matters of truth and scripture.

I don't need any man, no matter how vested by the RCC or any other man-made self-proclaimed agent of God, to tell me what God 'approves' or deems as viable knowledge. I see right through those kind of deceptions, first with my heart and then with opened eyes. I'm not bashing anyone or extolling anyone. I just follow my orders directly: trust God and not in man, not even myself. John 15:26. God sent the Spirit to each of us, He didn't send men with Spirit to guide us. The Spirit is our direct guidance.


Correct me if I am getting this wrong, but it sounds to me as if what you are saying is that you have been given a "better Spirit' than anyone else in the world. You say you know more from what the Spirit tells you than what He tells others who have received Him; or are you saying you are the only one the Spirit has decided to trust with the whole truth? Sounds a bit superior and self-important if you ask me. The bible calls itself the word of God, but you have the real truth; you have the true meaning of god's word but those "suits" who also are brothers and sisters in Christ and have the same Spirit do not. Is that about what you mean?



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?' 14 And they said, 'Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.' 15 He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' 16 Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' 17 And Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Barjona [son of Jonah], because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.' " Matthew 16:13-19

For Queenannie, who believes the church is a man made institution.
Jesus may have not declared whether that church be Catholic, Baptist or Presbyterian, but he forcefull declared that the church belonged to Him.
"I will build My church.." All church's may not teach the gospel fully or correctly but Christs' church (the body of all believers) and the corporate gathering of believers to worship & praise God and grow in their understanding and faith was instituted by Christ.

Lightseeker



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
First you said this about not needing anyone to tell you what God says -


Originally posted by queenannie38
I don't need any man, ... to tell me what God 'approves'
or deems as viable knowledge.


Then you said this about following what the bible says -


I just follow my orders directly: trust God and not in man,
not even myself. John 15:26.


Those two statements contradict each other. I posted the information
on when and where the bible came into acceptance. As you can see,
it was inspired by God, but MEN wrote it and MEN had to sift through
the books in the bible, as well as hundreds of other books and letters,
to come up with what is now in the bible, which you are quoting. So
actually you already are relying on MEN to tell you what God deems
viable.


I have absolute confidence in the reliability of the New Testament,
but have no need to rely on others to tell me this, especially religious men
and church fathers.


Another contradiction. This time you contradicted in the same sentence.
You say you have ABSOLUTE confidence in the New Testament - which
was put together by religious men and church fathers - but then you say
you have no need to rely on those men and church fathers. Heck ..
you DO if you read the bible. You already ARE relying on them.


[edit on 7/29/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
I don't understand the point you're making?

No point really. The title of this thread is to look at the bible
from a different angle. If we are taking a look at the bible then
we should know when and where the texts became 'approved'
and actually made into the bible. Dontchya' think it's a good idea
to understand what we are looking at while we discuss it?


Are we to actually regard these listed men as in a position of
authority between ourselves and our High Priest?

This is history. Those men actually were in a position of
authority to decide what was the Word of God and what wasn't.
Some of them highly doubted that many of the texts that are in
the bible today came from God. Of HIGH doubt was Revelation.
During the times that scripture was sifted through, they were in
a position to decide what was of God and what wasn't. They were
in this position either by Divine Will, or through human means.
Whatever the case ... they were there.


are you seeing it as I do, then--that the fact they didn't
wholeheartedly welcome the last book of the bible into the canon is pretty
good proof its got some truths which threaten their hijacked so-called
authority?

Nope. Actually I see it a bit differently. They were closer to the time of
the events than we are. A lot closer. In the early years they knew people
who were intimately involved with Christ. They could have seen errors
or contradictions that we don't see. Either that, or in the case of
Revelations, they saw an old man who was under tremedous pressure
and stress, writing down stress induced dreams or dementia driven
hallucinations. John was very old, lived in excile, survived assassination
attempts, and watched all his closest friends be butchered. THAT is
stressful and from a psychological point of view .... his 'dreams' of
revelation could be nothing more than stress induced dementia driven
fantasy. He was a good and holy man, so naturally his 'visions' would
contain holy characters and plots.


Without Revelation, Genesis is incomplete
I'll give that
some thought, but at the present time I disagree. Christ can come back
WITHOUT there being all the seven lamps and seven seals and so on
and so forth.

Earlier you said something that I completely agree with ... to
paraphrase (correct me if I'm wrong) - that the bible isn't the only
source of truth. I completely agree with you, and the bible itself
says this.


Mark 4:33 - "With many such parables he spoke the word to them .."
(what were the others? Scripture doesn't contain ...)
Mark 6:34 "He began to teach them many things."
(what things? Scripture doesn't contain)
John 16:12 "I have yet many things to say to you, but you can not
bear them now."
(what things? Scripture doesn't contain)
Jon 20:30 - "now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the
disciples, which are not written in this book"
(what things? Scripture doesn't contain)
John 21:25 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did;
were every one of them to be written, I suppose the world itself could
not contain the books that would be written."
Acts 1:2-3 - To the apostles he presented himself alive after his
passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days,
and speaking of the kingdom of God"
(what things were taught? It's not written down)
See also Luke 24:15-16, 25-27

So we have Sacred tradition and oral teachings ... which the bible
encourages us to use.

1 Cor 11:2 - "Maintain the traditions ... even as I have delivered them to you."
2 Thess 2:15 "Hold to the traditions .. taught by word of mouth or by letter."
2 Thess 3:6 "... traditions that you received from us"
1 Cor 15:1 - " ... the Gospel, which you received ..."
1 Gal 1:9 - " ... the gospel .. which you received."
1 Thes 2:9 - "we preached to you the gospel of God"
1 Thes 2:13 - "when you received the word of God which you heard
from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really
is, the word of God"
2 Tim 1:13-14: "Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have
heard from me ..."


[edit on 7/29/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I am in agreement with queenannie38's position and doctorial beliefs, Anyone listening to her - with an open mind would learn a conciderable amount.

I am not saying that hers is the only possible correct opinion, and that it should be taken blindly - However listen to it carefully and meditate on it, the revalations it may bring forth may suprise you.

The Christians posting here represent both the best and worst features of Christianity, Their best is a true heard felt desire to spread and clarify their doctorine as they interperate it. The worst, however is being over zealous to the point of hypocricy.

Among the points missed here is that Jesus NEVER claimed to be G-d, or any part of G-d, merely a Son of G-d, as are we all sons, and daughters of G-d.

As a spokesman for the Holy scriptures, Jesus taught the Holy Scriptures.
By using the New Testiment as the sole cited "Gospel" the Essence of G-d is not being adaquately represented. (paraphrasing a bit - wasn't Christ saying don't praise me - all praise go to the Father).

A few things that are often overlooked within the Christian sect are that roughly half of Jesus' apostels were his cousins, Joseph of Aramathia (?sp) was his uncle, and it is highly likely that Mary Magdelin was his wife.

Given the simple fact that roughly half of his apostils were his cousins, it would equate today to you having a few of your relatives pass around stories about how great you are/were within the religious circut, and have these wrightings get into the right hands.

In addition, Jesus Christ was NOT the only 'Jesus" floating around the region during the time of Christ, there were several - all preaching very similar messages. So it is also quite likely that the New Testiment is - to some degree - a compilation of all of their teachings.

It would benifit everyone, if prior to preaching the New Testiment first build a stronger foundation within the Holy Scriptures, as that was the basis for the teachings of the New Testiment. Far too many people are of the belief that the New Testiment exists to replace the Holy Scriptures, when it was intended to enhance the Holy Scriptures. Were this not the case theywould have removed the Holy Scriptures from the Bible a long time ago.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:54 PM
link   

God wrote the bible for you to see Him.


The Bible was NOT written by the hand of GOD. The Bible was written by man, and what they thought GOD was trying to say to them.

Quit shaking your head and think about this for a second.

Jesus Christ, son of man, son of GOD preached about forming "religion". He spoke of the INDIVIDUAL and his relationship with the father. Now, he himself writes a book to base a "religion" off of?

No verses please. I have translated the meaning of myself.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Certainly parts of Exodus and Revelation were written directly by God



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by dancer
Among the points missed here is that Jesus NEVER claimed to be G-d, or any part of G-d, merely a Son of G-d, as are we all sons, and daughters of G-d.


25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.

27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

30 I and my Father are one.
John 10:25-30

Would you consider yourself equal to God? Jesus said He was God.

For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.
Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son,
that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. John 5:21-24 (NIV)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was with God in the beginning.
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
In him was life, and that life was the light of men. John 1-1-4

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14 (NIV)

7 If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; henceforth you know him and have seen him." 8 Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied." 9 Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves. John 14:7-11

Jesus never claimed to be God? I say you are mistaken.

Also, just an FYI-Chrisitans don't try to spread "doctrine"; they spread the good news of Jesus Christ and what He has done for all of those who seek to be saved from sin. Jesus stills saves today as He did 2000 years ago and He is still God.

Grace & Peace,

Lightseeeker




[edit on 7/29/2005 by lightseeker]

[edit on 7/29/2005 by lightseeker]

[edit on 7/29/2005 by lightseeker]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Good! Now we are getting some where...

I maintain that Christ Never claimed to be G-d.

Working on the behalf of G-d - Definately - without question.

Through that which Christ taught, and by being as a primary example of what a good person was Christ brought more people to G-d than anyone since - Is without question.

The examples Cited reflect how their faith was brought to fruition via Christ.

Most currious Selection.......

Here are my interpetations:

Eg. in 25 - Is G-d not your father? - Of Cource he is. And the works that you do do bear witness of you as well.

In 26 - You don't belive in what I teach - because you do not share the same doctorine as I do.

In 27 - Those that hear the message I am speaking know to follow me and I recognise them as my family.

In 28 - Through my teachings they have learned faith in G-d and that faith is so strong they will never falter.

In 29 - G-d (father) is greater than everything (If Christ implied he was G-d this clenches his denial of it - as if he were claiming to be G-d he could not have seperated himself from G-d to say that 'My Father is greater than all" as that would include himself). Due to their faith they are beyond anyones ability to corrupt.

In 30 One in doctorial agreement - eg. My teachings are correct according to the Scriptures.

However - John 10:34 - "Ye are gods" & 10:36 "I am the son of G-d"

--
Gen - 1:26 Let US make man in our image.
(Who is "US" and "Our" ?)
Gen 1:27 male and female he created them - (before Adam?)
Gen 2:7 formed man of the dust of the ground - (Adam)
Gen 6:2 That the sons of G-d saw the daughters of men - (Other Sons before Christ? - note the plural)

Currious - Have you ever looked at the formation created by the Jews while moving the Arc of the Covenent? - They setup their camp in a very orderly manner - that never changed.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by dancer
Good! Now we are getting some where...

I maintain that Christ Never claimed to be G-d.

Working on the behalf of G-d - Definately - without question.


And I maintain just the opposite: Jesus declared Himself to be God in the flesh and prophesied early in His ministry why and how He would be arrested and crucified and His return to Heaven to sit down at the right hand of he Father. Perhaps I should have just used the one or two sentence or partial sentence that shows His claim to divinity.

John 10:30 "...I and My Father are One." He is claiming that He and God the Father are identical in essence and in fact; the only difference between them is a matter of "role" not divinity.

John 14:9 "... He that has seen Me has seen the Father." Again, He is claiming that if anyone sees Him they have seen God."

John 14:11 "Believe Me that I am in The Father and The Father is in Me."
Again, Christ is telling His disciples that He is of the same divinity and essence as the Father (God),

John 1:14 ... The Word (Logos-in greek, literally the word of God) became
flesh and dwelt among us...The Glory of the ONE & ONLY (refers to God), who came from the Father.


Through that which Christ taught, and by being as a primary example of what a good person was Christ brought more people to G-d than anyone since - Is without question.

The examples Cited reflect how their faith was brought to fruition via Christ.


Really? and how do you explain the miracles and healings that Christ performed and the instances where He personally forgave people their sins? is that consistent with you view of Christ as just a primary example of what a good person was.? Do you know of anyone is the history of the world who has been able to match His example and be as "good" aperson as He was.?


Most currious Selection.......


If you say so.


Here are my interpetations:

Eg. in 25 - Is G-d not your father? - Of Cource he is. And the works that you do do bear witness of you as well.

In 26 - You don't belive in what I teach - because you do not share the same doctorine as I do.

In 27 - Those that hear the message I am speaking know to follow me and I recognise them as my family.

In 28 - Through my teachings they have learned faith in G-d and that faith is so strong they will never falter.

In 29 - G-d (father) is greater than everything (If Christ implied he was G-d this clenches his denial of it - as if he were claiming to be G-d he could not have seperated himself from G-d to say that 'My Father is greater than all" as that would include himself). Due to their faith they are beyond anyones ability to corrupt.

In 30 One in doctorial agreement - eg. My teachings are correct according to the Scriptures.

However - John 10:34 - "Ye are gods" & 10:36 "I am the son of G-d"


Obviously, you are refusing to aknowledge what is as plain as the nose on your face; more's the pity.

--

Gen - 1:26 Let US make man in our image.
(Who is "US" and "Our" ?)


This is referring to the Trinity- Father, Son & Holy Spirit

[quote]Gen 1:27 male and female he created them - (before Adam?)
Gen 2:7 formed man of the dust of the ground - (Adam)

There are two tellings of the creation story in Genesis- capter 1 is a synopsis of all that was created and Chapter 2 details the creation of Man & Woman.

Gen 6:2 Th

at the sons of G-d saw the daughters of men - (Other Sons before Christ? - note the plural)


This was referring to the fallen angels who left their first estate (heaven) and were cast to earth with Lucifer(Satan)Jude 6 & Rev 12. As to the word sons, please, note the small s.


Currious - Have you ever looked at the formation created by the Jews while moving the Arc of the Covenent? - They setup their camp in a very orderly manner - that never changed.


That is very interesting.

Grace & Peace,

Lightseeker



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
The Old Testament was about the Jews and the Jews only who held the blood line that eventually produced part a of human side of Christ from the original Adam.

All the conflicts were about saving the word of God as God protected their bloodlines. Angels would also try and corrupt this hence the flood, Babel, Sodom, Goliath and battles and plagues like that.

Jesus fullfilled the role of prophesied King who came to save the Jews who missed the point when he came. Jesus came basically and said the future before the end would be like the past 'as in the days of Noah so shall the son of man be when he will return,' (Example not direct quote). Meaning people will miss the boat when he returns and the world will be currupt because of their ignorance and disbelief and people left behind. The past future parady and history repeating it self because man as a whole does not change.

History should be taken as history in the Bible and the reflections of ancient cultures and stories relating.

Parables are parables, not everything are a parables including Revelations. Some things are clear for our future evidence but the build-ups are not.

Symbolisms are just encoded languages that can be deciphered like Nebacanezza's dream in Daniel as the metals represent empires like Iron=Rome Gold=Babylon etc. lion with wings=US/UK maybe for today.

It's complicated but not impossible and the Bible decodes it's self within you as you read it and most people come to the same conclusion if they study it right rather than let someone else tell you whats what.
One Just need the basics to get you started.

Contradictions, English translations sometimes, different view points within it from witnesses at times.

Things are counted for one consideration like counting the army and counting those who can fight or civilians.

Words lost in the English meaning, go back to Hebrew and Greek references. Old Hebrew dictionary example.

Belief in God's inspired word and Holy Spirit in consideration.

Prophesy, historical evidence of places and people and history.

Biblical numbers how Hebrew words add up and using calculations as one would for the mark of the beast.

Things told 3 times, sequences in how things are told. Numbers of the verses.

God's order with numbers and our universe his signature, like 7 colour 7 musical Notes. (Purist forms nothing like 1.111 for number counting to ten but basic forms).

Hebrew language and numbers being the same in their symbol the first language.

Bible code not too sure yet.

It can go deep but learn lesson one pick up and read for your self and remember things so you can question it. The Gospels do just that for you with the different views for you to judge over from different witnesses and charater angles.

Co-hirance of all the authors how stories past and future relate and prove withing its own writting.

There is more but you decide where or do'nr start.


[edit on 29-7-2005 by The time lord]

[edit on 29-7-2005 by The time lord]




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join