A contradiction in the bible

This has been an ongoing fight for ages and will continue to be. I agree with you that they are separate beings.

The belief of my family is that Jesus is God. Yet when Jesus was here he taught God, not of or about himself. Which to me is a very important thing to recognize. He would not have said anything about following Gods word, but to only follow his words cause he was God. But that is not what he did, he did say follow Gods teachings.

God said not to worship idols either. As long as we idolize Jesus then we are worshipping a false God. Jesus states 129 times in the bible that God is the Father.

But even more important, if we are worshipping God, and if Jesus is God, then what are we doing wrong. Nothinging in my eyes. But if we worship Jesus and he is not God then we are in fairly big trouble. Just because we pray to God does not discount what Jesus did for us.

There are many complexities in the Christian religions... including which bible is right. There are so many to choose from where does a person start?

And what of the pages of the bible that are included in the Dead Sea Scrolls? The average Christian, like my family members, tend to say things like, "Well if God wanted those books in the bible they would be in the bible". None the less to discount the word of God is generally not a good idea. For some reason people get set in their ways and close their minds to the rest of it.

All actions are justified with one verse or another. The bible says, 'Thou shalt not kill', yet we justify things like the wars. I don't remember Jesus saying anything about killing being ok if the president says it's ok. So there is a ton of hypocrisy as well.

reply to post by Zaimless

This has been an ongoing fight for ages and will continue to be.

Most all Christians recognize that the Father and the Son are separate beings.
There are two different ways to deal with the Godhead thing if you do not like the traditional trinity solution.
Unitarian or Oneness.
If you want to maintain the separateness between the personalities, you have to go with the Unitarian solution.
That says there is only one God.
Where does that leave Jesus, being the Son of God?
"Son of God" can be seen as a title, much as "Messiah" or Christ" are titles.
I think there has to be more to it, as in Jesus having been born in a unique way.
His heritage, birth, connection with the spirit of God, and resurrection, all come together to create a person who is able to take a special position.

8I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who had been showing them to me. 9But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and of all who keep the words of this book. Worship God!"

Revelation 22
For all we know, this "angel" talking to John was actually Jesus.
Listen to what he says, "I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets."
Could not the same thing be said of Jesus?
My opinion is to go along with what is clearly revealed, for now.
When we are raised and transformed, we will understand how to properly glorify Jesus.
We do know that Jesus asked for God to glorify him, in order to glorify his Father.
One of his disciples apparently witnessed this exchange between Jesus and God, but does not, of course, explain it.
Now, do we place our selves as greater, and can comprehend all this?
We will, I believe, at some future time, be able to worship Jesus.
But, I think it is not proper to jump the gun, and go beyond our current instructions to do whatever we feel like.
But, if you find yourself directly plugged into God, above all the prophets and teachers (in the Bible) and Jesus himself, you are not going to listen to me.(meaning to take the leap of logic necessary to follow whoever came up with the Trinity concept we have today, and worship Jesus as God himself)


[edit on 24-7-2008 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by Matrix1111

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by Matrix1111
"Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb." ~Rev. 21:9

spiritual jerusalem is made up of saints including the apostles as the foundation.

That's an assumption. There isn't a verse that directly says that. You have to deduce that assuming the marriage of Lamb is a metaphor. I think my view is just as valid as yours, especially if you consider the whole premise of the bible starting with Genesis and what happened in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were blocked from becoming like God:

no, not an assumption, and there is a verse that denotes the spirit and the bride being 2 separate entities.

rev 22:[16] I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
[17] And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

21:[2] And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

not a bride for god because its the bride for the lamb (jesus)

[9] And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.

the saints are presented by god to jesus as a bride

2 cor 11: [2] For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

refering to the 144,000

rev 14:[4] These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

We were created in God's image, male and female.

man was created in god's image, not both. woman was created from man hence the name woman

We were designed to become like God after maturing on earth for a period of time. (21 years) But Adam and Eve prematurely (at 16 years of age) attempted to take from the "tree of life." So they were kicked out of Eden and blocked from having access to this "tree of life."

nowhere is that supported by scripture. they took from the tree of knowledge. satan lied when he said they would become like god.

This sequence of events is logical and progresses based on the original plan God layed out in the Garden of Eden. The Holy Spirit was just a stand in until this "atomic equation" of Adam and Eve could be set up. (Adam = Atom) Once that bond is established then other "molecules of Adam and Eve" would be produced or ingrafted.

what?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Matrix1111

 

You mean your spirit guides "died" after they wrote the bible and mine are still "living?"

It does seem to be a little ironic, since you state it that way.
I just am suspicious of what looks like works of science fiction.
There is plenty of that stuff out there and you would have problems if you tried to believe it all.
I have been listening to late night talk radio for a lot of years and I have heard it all.
Of course it comes out as contradictory, taken all together.
Maybe some people's spirit guides are better than others.

It does raise the issue of revelation and validity of the gospels in the first place. Why was revelation legitimate in the first 100 years of Jesus' death, but then not afterwards? Sounds more like a restriction imposed by the bigger church upon the smaller churches of the day.

You make a good point about the need to be cynical against so many diverse and sometimes contradictory spirits. Discerning spirits isn't easy or ever conclusive, hence the hundreds of Christian denominations.

[edit on 7/24/2008 by Matrix1111]

reply to post by miriam0566


I still say you're making an assumption. The New Jerusalem is not the bride that is spoken about in Rev. 19. Yes, the New Jerusalem comes "prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband." But that's not saying it's a literal bride.

As for being created in God's image, male and female, that's just what the bible says. It means we are like God -- at least if we hadn't fallen.

At what point would Adam and Eve had become like God? The answer isn't in the bible. The answer would have to come from revelation. I say 21 years of age. It's based on revelation. You can accept it or reject it. Same for the bible in general. We can accept it or reject it as truth.

Btw, I agree man was created in God's image and woman was created in man's image. But that's not in the bible. That's based on revelation.

Originally posted by Zaimless
This has been an ongoing fight for ages and will continue to be. I agree with you that they are separate beings.

The belief of my family is that Jesus is God. Yet when Jesus was here he taught God, not of or about himself. Which to me is a very important thing to recognize. He would not have said anything about following Gods word, but to only follow his words cause he was God. But that is not what he did, he did say follow Gods teachings.

God said not to worship idols either. As long as we idolize Jesus then we are worshipping a false God. Jesus states 129 times in the bible that God is the Father.

But even more important, if we are worshipping God, and if Jesus is God, then what are we doing wrong. Nothinging in my eyes. But if we worship Jesus and he is not God then we are in fairly big trouble.

You make a good case in support of the Arian view of the Trinity. Unfortunately it didn't win out at the Council of Nicea and now all Christians idolize Jesus as God. This confusion will make it difficult for Christ when he comes again. People will be expecting a giant-sized Jesus to float down from the sky and stand on the "City of Seven Hills." It's the same kind of confusion that Jesus met during his lifetime. The Jews had all kinds of expectations based on various interpretations of scripture.

Yes, this has been going on for ages.

reply to post by Matrix1111

You make a good case in support of the Arian view of the Trinity. Unfortunately it didn't win out at the Council of Nicea and now all Christians idolize Jesus as God.

I was watching a show about religion on History Channel and they flat-out lied.
They said the council came to an agreement.
Right, but that was because the supporters of Arius saw that the deck was stacked against them and they all walked out before it got started.
After Constantine died the Arians took over.
That lasted for a while but the political connections of the Athanasius faction allowed them to eventually take the Church back over.
But really, both sides believed Jesus was God.
The argument was over whether he had a beginning, considering he was begotten.
I was brought up in an Arian theology, to start with.
In my studying to find support for my views, I gradually went to the extreme position of holding back on the full divinity status of Jesus.
I think I am in a very small minority, among believing Christians.

reply to post by Matrix1111

Why was revelation legitimate in the first 100 years of Jesus' death, but then not afterwards? Sounds more like a restriction imposed by the bigger church upon the smaller churches of the day.

There are things that belong in the New Testament of the Bible because they were written by people directly connected to Jesus.
There were for a long time, other writings that were used in individual churches that had the same weight as the "Apostolic" writings but they were eventually pushed aside as a result of the effort of creating conformity among all the churches.
Some churches became nonconformist and had all writings, distinctive to that church, destroyed.
The Official Church set up a system for creating their own pronouncements as superseding the authority of the Bible.
So, no need for revelation, other than the personal views of the holders of the reins of power.


[edit on 24-7-2008 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Matrix1111

 

You make a good case in support of the Arian view of the Trinity. Unfortunately it didn't win out at the Council of Nicea and now all Christians idolize Jesus as God.

But really, both sides believed Jesus was God. The argument was over whether he had a beginning, considering he was begotten.

I don't think Arius thought Jesus was God. I do think he thought Jesus was created by God and therefore had divinity because of it.

I confirmed it here: www.nuis.ac.jp...

Arius was sincere in his study and interpretation of Scripture. Based upon his understanding of Greek language (in which the New Testament was written), he began to have doubts about what was traditionally believed about the nature of Christ. What did scripture mean when it referred to Christ as the “only-begotten of the Father?”[8] Was "only-begotten” to be interpreted in the strictest sense of the word? If so, would the biblical terms of “Son of God”, and “Firstborn of All Creation” refer to his nature as a created being? However, if he were created, how could he at the same time be the Creator? If Christ were a created being, what would this say about the claims of his divinity? Arius ultimately concluded that Christ was the most perfect of all creations, but not eternal and somehow less than God.[9] It was to this growing conviction that he devoted his genius for the rest of his life.




[edit on 7/24/2008 by Matrix1111]

reply to post by Matrix1111

Arius ultimately concluded that Christ was the most perfect of all creations, but not eternal and somehow less than God.[9] It was to this growing conviction that he devoted his genius for the rest of his life.

That is the opinion of the writer you were quoting.
Arius was declared a heretic and was made anathema.
So, all his writings were destroyed.
The views of Arius is to be found in the writings of his enemies, in their attacks against him.
I collected what was available, of the surviving quotes from Arius and I do not recall him ever saying that Jesus was not God.
Someone could infer that, by using their own logic to take it to the next step, but Arius never did.
He never would have lived long enough to find people who were sympathetic to him, if he went around saying Jesus was not God.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Matrix1111

 

Arius ultimately concluded that Christ was the most perfect of all creations, but not eternal and somehow less than God.[9] It was to this growing conviction that he devoted his genius for the rest of his life.

That is the opinion of the writer you were quoting.
Arius was declared a heretic and was made anathema.
So, all his writings were destroyed.
The views of Arius is to be found in the writings of his enemies, in their attacks against him.
I collected what was available, of the surviving quotes from Arius and I do not recall him ever saying that Jesus was not God.
Someone could infer that, by using their own logic to take it to the next step, but Arius never did.
He never would have lived long enough to find people who were sympathetic to him, if he went around saying Jesus was not God.

I think that's your interpretation of the interpretation of Arius given by his enemies.

If all of Arius' writings were destroyed and we can only deduce what he said by what his enemies wrote about him, then how do you really know he believed Jesus was God? Because it's inferred?

I think using logic is a big part of understanding the bible, its origins and the dogma it left behind. To think otherwise is... ummm... how shall I put it? Ummm...



Hey, I enjoy talking to you.

[edit on 7/24/2008 by Matrix1111]

Originally posted by Matrix1111
I still say you're making an assumption. The New Jerusalem is not the bride that is spoken about in Rev. 19. Yes, the New Jerusalem comes "prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband." But that's not saying it's a literal bride.

19:[7] Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

21:[9] And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
[10] And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

im sorry, but it really doesnt get any more straight forward than that.

are you saying that the lamb has 2 brides?

As for being created in God's image, male and female, that's just what the bible says. It means we are like God -- at least if we hadn't fallen.

i agree, we are in god's image but how does that make jesus and god a duality?

At what point would Adam and Eve had become like God? The answer isn't in the bible. The answer would have to come from revelation. I say 21 years of age. It's based on revelation. You can accept it or reject it. Same for the bible in general. We can accept it or reject it as truth.

where in revelation does it even hint to it?

Btw, I agree man was created in God's image and woman was created in man's image. But that's not in the bible. That's based on revelation.

what do you mean it not in the bible? i really dont understand where you are coming to these conclusions

The Bride says, "Come".
Who is coming, that the Bride would be saying to come?
And who would be asking that person or thing, to come?
To me, it is a symbolic way of talking about ourselves, waiting for the return of Jesus.
That would make us the Bride.
Revelations is a slightly difficult book to understand.
It switches back and forth, between literal and symbolic.
The apparent time line is not a real chronological time line.
It also recycles different things, by first saying it is one thing and then turn around and say the same thing is something else.
Revelations seems to develop certain themes, based on things that would be familiar to people already knowledgeable in the teachings of the Bible.
Then it uses these themes, over and over to explain different points.
But, I think it may be possible to find a certain consistency throughout, and can be found, in the Bride problem.
I think the groom can be correlated with Jesus and the Bride with the church.


[edit on 24-7-2008 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by miriam0566

Originally posted by Matrix1111
I still say you're making an assumption. The New Jerusalem is not the bride that is spoken about in Rev. 19. Yes, the New Jerusalem comes "prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband." But that's not saying it's a literal bride.

19:[7] Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

21:[9] And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife.
[10] And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,

im sorry, but it really doesnt get any more straight forward than that.

And Jesus had a sharp double-edged sword for a tongue? (Rev. 1:16) And Jesus is a literal Lamb marrying a city? There's definitely symbolism involved here. How we interpret it is open to multiple opinions. The bible says we are to be temples of God. Does that mean we should turn ourselves into brick and cement?

There are many idioms, metaphors, figures and allegories used throughout the bible. The Song of Solomon is a perfect example.

Jesus said, "Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father." (John 16:25)

I guess that's about as straightforward as things can get until he returns.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Matrix1111

 

Why was revelation legitimate in the first 100 years of Jesus' death, but then not afterwards? Sounds more like a restriction imposed by the bigger church upon the smaller churches of the day.

There are things that belong in the New Testament of the Bible because they were written by people directly connected to Jesus.
There were for a long time, other writings that were used in individual churches that had the same weight as the "Apostolic" writings but they were eventually pushed aside as a result of the effort of creating conformity among all the churches.
Some churches became nonconformist and had all writings, distinctive to that church, destroyed.
The Official Church set up a system for creating their own pronouncements as superseding the authority of the Bible.
So, no need for revelation, other than the personal views of the holders of the reins of power.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by jmdewey60]

Conformity? They couldn't resolve the contradictions so they doctored the book? That doesn't sound like a bible I can entirely put my trust in. I think it's better to assume if the disciples had a hard time understanding the deep truths of Jesus while hearing things firsthand, how much harder was it for people that had to rely on secondhand (or thirdhand) knowledge?

There are things that belong in the New Testament of the Bible because they were written by people directly connected to Jesus? Other than the espistle of Peter, who else was directly connected to Jesus and got into the bible?

reply to post by Matrix1111


This is my take on it.
You can study this stuff, I am sure you are capable.
I did not say doctored.
The Hierarchical bureaucrats in high positions of power, in the RCC were smart enough to not mess with it, themselves.
People who were devoted to the power of Rome were allowed to make the Bible.
The people who did, were skilled and ethical, the only thing wrong with them is that they swore allegiance to the Pope.
They had to make it from scattered manuscripts from all over the Empire and in all kinds of libraries.
They had certain guidelines that they followed.
You can sit there, today and judge them, with the benefit of modern advancements in understanding.
We should thank the scholars who put together the bible.

reply to post by jmdewey60


And the guidelines had a specific viewpoint to promote. Now if they were fair, they would have allowed the "heretics" to follow their version of Jesus' teachings, rather than exterminate them. That would have been the noble thing to do. But they weren't spiritually evolved enough to understand that truth can stand on its own legs. Censorship or war isn't a necessary part of the process.

Yes, I can sit here and give voice to all those people that were unjustly tortured and burned at the stake because their beliefs didn't match up with the RC. And you can sit in your chair, assuming that no damage has been done, implying that what was lost wasn't of importance. My conscience won't let me. I know the reality of Christian history and it's exploits too well to sit by and let the status quo claim superiority of faith.

Time to wake up. And the world is doing exactly that thanks to academic scholars who don't have any allegiance to a church hierarchy or a vest interest in preserving inaccurate Christology.

Originally posted by Matrix1111
And Jesus had a sharp double-edged sword for a tongue? (Rev. 1:16) And Jesus is a literal Lamb marrying a city? There's definitely symbolism involved here. How we interpret it is open to multiple opinions. The bible says we are to be temples of God. Does that mean we should turn ourselves into brick and cement?

yes revelations is filled with symbolism, jesus is a symbolic lamb. but the bride is not holy spirit. there are too many scriptures that point the brides identity in a different different direct

reply to post by Matrix1111


I am not a big expert on the Bible, but I have done some looking into it.
What I am saying is that there was what can be considered as scientists in literature who happened to be monks.
They took it upon themselves to make a Bible.
The Hierarchical Bureaucrats in High Positions of Power, in the RCC only passed judgment on what they thought should be included in the Bible; they did not actually do anything to make one.
Hundreds of years later, these scholars joined forces, throughout Christendom, to find and compile the best manuscripts of the Bible.
This may have been critical, at this point, just from a preservation aspect.
The people who took on this massive project are to be thanked, and the Church structure, only for allowing this to happen and to facilitate it.
According to new info that you pointed out the preservation of the Dead Sea Scrolls may be a result of actions taken by the Hierarchical Bureaucrats in High Positions of Power in Judaism.
They may have not been such good people (they killed Jesus), but there were individuals within that institution who understood the value of those manuscripts, enough to save them.
It is my opinion that a massive preservation project, among scholars, in Babylon, after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, is responsible for us having the Old Testament.
So, my point is that good things happened at the individual level, within these institutions that overall, did some very bad things.


[edit on 25-7-2008 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by miriam0566

yes revelations is filled with symbolism, jesus is a symbolic lamb. but the bride is not holy spirit. there are too many scriptures that point the brides identity in a different direction

It's open to interpretation until Christ returns and speaks plainly. (John 16:25)