A contradiction in the bible

would it be possible for the christians on the thread to be more specific about what branch of "christianity" they belive in ?

i mean theres probbobly just as many branches of christianity as there are hindu gods and its a bit hard to speak in general terms on such a broad subject since from what i know all christians do not belive in the same doctrine.

After reading all these posts here, I can see clearly that people are trying to understand the infinite by using finite thinking, which is really all that a finite being can do... however, there are some ways to understand why this is not polytheism:

1) In the Christian concept, the Father is the invisible and infinite source of all things. The Father can't be seen by anyone, since the Father is not finite, and has no form. The Jews refer to this as the Unity of God, meaning that He is a unity or singular infinite being. If he has no boundaries or limits, you can't detect his existence directly, but only through logical deduction that He must exist in order for anything else to exist.

2) In Jewish thinking, the term "son of" means to "come from" and can be applied in many ways that have nothing to do with procreation. Also, remember that Jesus claimed to be the "Son of God" and the "Son of Man." The son of man part was his physicality and his limits as a finite human being. Ezekiel was also called a "son of man", and the angels were called the B'nai Elohim, meaning "sons of God." Jesus' title of "Son of God" indicated that within him also dwelt the infinite presence from the Father, which was by way of the Holy Spirit that dwelt within him. I will explain this more in the next paragraph.

3) The Holy Spirit is the "wind" or "force" of God in this finite created universe. Since the Father is the originating potential for all things, and the source for every concept and actuality, He is obviously outside of creation. The way in which the infinite God comes into the finite universe is by way of his "force" or "breath", which is know as the Holy Spirit.

Humans are actually 3-in-1 beings, constituted as finite models of the infinite creator. We have a body, soul, and spirit... a physical, mental, and spiritual component, all three of which make up the complete person.

The Father correlates to the "soul", which is the mind, composed of thoughts, will, and emotion. The Son correlates to the "body", being the physical manifestation of God, and the Holy Spirit correlates to the "spirit", which is the actual life force or breath that constitutes our eternal existence.

When your mind gives commands to your body, that is communication happening between the two parts. Jesus said they he never did anything, or said anything that the Father didn't tell him to do or say. Your body can "say" the same thing, assuming you don't have any physical ailments.

When your body experiences pain or damage, and sends signals to your brain/mind, that is your body talking to your mind.

Any place where you see Jesus acting as a human being, or expressing human attributes, that is the "Son of Man" aspect of him.

It also says in the bible that he was the "first of many brethren", and it teaches that each of us can essentially follow his example and become "one with the Father," which means that we can become more and more like the "source of all things" and become more spiritual in our understanding and behavior.

For everyone's information, I am not a religious person, in that I do not hold to a particular church or group of people. My conclusions in this regard come from my own attempt to understand these things, which I have diligently studied for over 3 decades, being a result of intense philosophical thinking and contemplation.


[edit on 15-12-2009 by downisreallyup]

reply to post by zerbot565

would it be possible for the christians on the thread to be more specific about what branch of "christianity" they belive in ?

Yes this would be possible. It would also be possible for the atheists
evolutionists, agnotics to state wheather or not they are homosexual or
not. Respectfully.

Let me explain
this may just be me however I see a completely different camp.
from the" a-" sexual atheist to the homosexual atheist.
I mean that with zero disrespect on my kids eyes.

Much as the difference between Cathalocism and the Protestants.
also Respectfully.


[edit on 14-12-2009 by randyvs]

reply to post by downisreallyup


verY good explaination.

ROMAN CATHOLIC



[edit on 15-12-2009 by fmcanarney]

Anti-Catholic
Anti-Protestant
Former-Baptist (protestant)
Currently an Apostolic Judeo-Christian.... also known as Armstrongist since Herbert W. Armstrong rekindled the "Churches of God" movement in the 20th century.

Sabbath Keeper
Anti-Christmas
Anti-Easter
Anti-St. Valentines Day
Anti-St. Patricks Day
Pro-Life
Creationism over Evolution
Libertarian/Independent
Male
28
Georgia
Minister


Enough information yet?

reply to post by fmcanarney


Actually not... Roman Catholics do in fact ascribe to 3-persons in one, which is NOT what I have explained.

Biblically, there is only one God, existing in everything, for by Him all things hold together. I do not believe in a TRINITY, but rather a TRI-UNITY, with the single God relating to the creation, and particularly us, through two specific manifestations of himself: directly through His Spirit, and indirectly through His "Only Begotten Son." The "Only Begotten Son" is unique among all the "Sons of God" in that he was born in the womb of a human woman, allowing him to also be a "Son of Man", opening the door for us to also have that same kind of unity with the Father.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by zerbot565

 

would it be possible for the christians on the thread to be more specific about what branch of "christianity" they belive in ?

Yes this would be possible. It would also be possible for the atheists
evolutionists, agnotics to state wheather or not they are homosexual or
not. Respectfully.

Let me explain
this may just be me however I see a completely different camp.
from the" a-" sexual atheist to the homosexual atheist.
I mean that with zero disrespect on my kids eyes.

Much as the difference between Cathalocism and the Protestants.
also Respectfully.


[edit on 14-12-2009 by randyvs]

well considering that heterosexuals can get children and homosexuals only throu artificial insemination or a breach in their sexuality might lead to children and a sexuals to be honest i dont even know if they carry genders but there is a hugh gap in between what they can do and not and what they have to do inorder to get children ,

Hi Zerbot 565--

Actually at least 50% of persons who regard themselves as 'homosexual' in the world today actually father physical children of their own the good old fashioned way (and not just Judy Garland's father either) that is to say, the physical same way heterosexuals do...think of Oscar Wilde who fathered a crop of lusty sons despite his truer homosexual nature...one must remember the times in which he lived and the price he paid for his honesty to the world about his sexuality (a jail sentence which eventually caused his death). That is because nearly 50% of all homosexuals are in heterosexual 'front' marriages called 'marriages of Convenience' (think of poor Rock Hudson whom the studio married off to some random studio secretary...)

There is a very gray area between 'homosexuality' (horrible word in the first place) and 'bi-sexuality' (an even worse-sounding word) and 'heterosexuality' (the worst of the lot): to me, there is actually no such thing as homo- or hetero- or bi-sexuality, just SEXUALITY in ALL of its expressions as Kinsey and Hite etal. all report with tonnes of data to back it up. Strict labels do not seem to work well with terran humans on this tiny insignificant planet---we're a roudy bunch of outlaws if you ask me !

[Especially where I was born (Hollywood CA), where all the people seem so darned good looking all the time no wonder they all bang each other !]

My Point to all of this is : a 'homosexual' male can 'physically' father a child just as easily as any heterosexual male, and can now do so inside or outside of a heterosexual 'marriage' either in bed, or shooting into a Petrie dish, or standing up, or sliding down a pole.

In truth there is no contradiction.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God, and so has no contradiction.

No way to get around that.

xtians arent the only ones who believe in multiple gods

ISis-RA-EL

Isis, Ra, and El: The one

Then you have mormons who call themselves xtian, yet they believe every single one of them can become gods.




[edit on 17-12-2009 by watcher73]

Originally posted by fmcanarney
In truth there is no contradiction.

The Bible is the inerrant word of God, and so has no contradiction.

No way to get around that.

Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other and there are thousands of others scattered throughout the rest of the bible.

The only way to get around that is to be illiterate.

LOL
You mean the two different accounts of the creation of man/woman?


The bible was written over 1600 years by 44 people most of whom did not know each other.

The bible is the inerrant word of God due to it being inspired, and it was God writing the words from a spiritual place using men to do the physical writing.

I'm not going to even try to read this whole post, but when I saw the title I genuinely laughed out loud. "A Contradiction in the Bible".... You don't say? Umm, if you scratch just a tiny bit deeper you will find that the bible is absolutely teeming with contradictions and inaccuracies.

edit to add that the 10 commandments are not the "10 commandments" There is only one place in the bible that makes that reference. Look it up, you will be surprised at what you find.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Majiq]

There's no contridiction in the Bible regarding this. God's name is Jehovah and his son's name became Jesus when he was born on earth. Before then his son's name as an angel was Michael and his title was the 'archangel'......which means the leader of the angels. After he died on earth, he kept the name Jesus when he returned to the heavenly realm.

The trinity doctrine is false and does contradict what the Bible says. However, the Bible does not contradict itself, because nowhere in the Bible is this trinity doctrine supported.

Jesus is not God. He is Jehovah God's son.

In christianity we have the father, son, and holy ghost.

In the vedas we have Brahma, visnu, and shiva.
Theyre the same thing. And the trinity in each case are Godhead.
God, or jehova,or krsna whichever name you use,through his infinite potency expands into the trinity but is simultaeniously one also

If you believe in the trinity, you do not believe in what the Bible says, because nowhere in the Bible does it state that Jesus is co-equal and co-powerful to Jehovah God.

The trinity doctrine teaches that they are co-equals. This goes against what the Bible says.

Originally posted by fmcanarney
LOL
You mean the two different accounts of the creation of man/woman?

No I mean the two accounts of creation period.

The bible is the inerrant word of God due to it being inspired, and it was God writing the words from a spiritual place using men to do the physical writing.

So then the world is flat and pillars hold it up, as god says..

Originally posted by zerbot565
would it be possible for the christians on the thread to be more specific about what branch of "christianity" they belive in ?

i mean theres probbobly just as many branches of christianity as there are hindu gods and its a bit hard to speak in general terms on such a broad subject since from what i know all christians do not belive in the same doctrine.

I think the doctrine of the trinity as an official church doctrine are pretty much uniform among the various denominations except for Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.
As a Seventh-day Adventist, I have no problem with believing that who we knew in the Old Testament as YHVH, is the same person as Jesus, with God being the Father, who Jesus called his Father and our Father. If you were to call up the headquarters of the SDA church and ask them what the "official" version is, you might not get that, but it can be found in the writings of the theologians of the church. The founders of the church were blatantly Arian, but not the Arianism described by the enemies of Arius, but what he actually believed, which was that the Son was begotten of the Father, but before any creation. So the Son was not created out of nothing but is inexplicably derived from the Father in a way beyond any kind of material process.
Angels are like the priests who could go into the holy place of the tabernacle of God, and the Son is like the high priest who could inter into the most holy place. Hebrews describes the Son as the radiance of the Father, and so he would have seemed to the angels as he came from the presence of God. As this glorious being, the Son did not go about in his own name but spoke as God himself.

reply to post by shasta9600


Hi there,Jehova Witness. I'm not saying that to put you down but you might as well say it. I believe in much of what you are saying except for the fact that Jesus existed as Jehovah of the OT and came in the flesh to reveal the Father to the world.... unknown to the world. I also don't believe in the trinity doctrine.

I love you and I'm a forgiving god.


(time passes)


DIE IN THIS WORLDWIDE FLOOD SINNERS!

(more time passes)

HAI GUYZZ!!! Now my name is Jesus and I love you again.

No contradictions in the bible AT ALL!



[edit on 17-12-2009 by watcher73]