A contradiction in the bible, page 5
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 17 times


reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 09:01 AM by LDragonFire
reply to post by Sparky63


As far as the sins of the father, Yes Adam sinned and had children after.

Awesome post

Anyone wanna discuss the Holy Spirit?


reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 03:29 PM by whirlwind
reply to post by LDragonFire

I think you are putting up a good debate here, however I think you are wrong.
You have used scripture out of text to justify a belief.

You have used scripture from:
Romans
Luke
Acts
1 Corinthians
Genesis
Revelations
John
Matthew

I feel most of these are not connected in any way.



But they are connected. The very fact that it is scattered throughout the Bible shows the validiity of the teaching. Satan was there at the beginning as he will be at the end. That is what all this is about....the conflict between good and evil. Why do you feel they are taken out of context?


Do any other Christians agree with whirlwind point of view?


Not many are taught the truth about the garden. Instead, they believe Eve took a bite of an apple.



One Christian I know told me not to speak to you I do however find it interesting.



I am glad to hear you are interested but very sorry to hear the rest. Perhaps that person needs to ask questions or show the reasons they believe it is not true.



I believe if the original sin was sex, the bible would have said so, clearly, and not having to goto the old and new testament to come to a conclusion.



If it wasn't true you wouldn't find it in the Old and in the New. There are a few things that aren't clearly written for all to see and understand. Take for instance Christ teaching in parables:


Luke 8:10 And He said, "Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.


Some people can read these truths but they will not truly see them. God opens our eyes to truths. I don't know if yours will be on this particular issue or not. I don't know if I have been shown all truths. We can't know what we don't know. (did that make sense?)



.............Whirlwind



reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 06:39 PM by AotearoaSon
Originally posted by helen670
reply to post by agoodshot


Hi agoodshot!

You have quoted Scripture correctly, but some still do not understand the actual meaning of why God came in the form of a man....
Some believe that God is worshiped falsely as three Gods....this not true, but many have been very much misinformed to the actual meaning of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Did God need to do this?
No, He did not, but because man brought on Sin to the whole earth, man was needed to destroy sin ...
No man was found worthy to destroy sin, but God Himself.....

God took upon Himself to be the Suffering Messiah......as the Old Testament prophets foretold of His Crucifixion and sufferings.........

The most vivid and detailed prediction about the sufferings of the Messiah is the prophecy of Isaiah, which occupies one and a half chapters of his book (the end of the 52nd and all of the 53rd). This prophecy contains such details of the sufferings of Christ, that the reader gets the impression that the prophet Isaiah wrote it at the foot of Golgotha, even though, as we know, the prophet Isaiah lived over seven centuries BC. We present here this prophecy.


'' And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors” (Is. 53:1-12).

more here....
helen

EDIT...spelling mistake


[edit on 9/30/2007 by helen670]



How do we know god is a 'he'? (small g for god was intentional)
Is this another form of power structure ensuring subjugation of women.

I always thought god was a black woman!!!!


reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 06:54 PM by whirlwind
reply to post by Sparky63


Was the forbidden fruit sexual relations, as some have held? This view finds no support in Scripture. For one thing, when God made the prohibition, Adam was alone and evidently remained that way for a while. (Genesis 2:23)



That is true. Adam was alone when God laid down that law.



Second, God told Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and become many and fill the earth.” (Genesis 1:28) Certainly, he would not command them to break his law and then sentence them to death for doing so! (1 John 4:8)



I don't understand the connection you are making. I'm sure He wanted Adam and Eve to multiply but the 1:28 verse was directed at mankind, not Adam. Mankind was to replenish the earth.

Even if it was Adam God was instructing to multiply He didn't sentence them to death for that. He expelled them from the Garden because the "serpent" was the "fruit" they partook of. From that union came Cain and he was of the serpent, not Adam.



Third, Eve partook of the fruit before Adam and later gave some to her husband. (Genesis 3:6) Adam and Eve sinned separately, not simultaneously. Chapter 3, verse 6, makes it clear that Eve was seduced to eat of the fruit first and that “afterward she gave some also to her husband when with her and he began eating it.” So eating of the forbidden fruit would make an inept and farfetched symbol of sexual intercourse.
Clearly, the fruit was not sex.


I don't know of the exact sequence of events but verse 6 states:

....and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her;....


We must be reading different Bibles as our 3:6 scripture isn't the same nor do I understand the significance of 1 John 4:8, in your first paragraph. Was that in error or am I just not understanding the point you are making?


When I began to understand the truth of what happened at the very beginning many other scriptures became clearer to me. It lets us know what the two of seven churches were teaching that Christ approved of (Smyrna and Philadelphia).


............Whirlwind


reply posted on 2-10-2007 @ 08:36 PM by shug7272
Originally posted by arpgme

I've made a topic like this already but they just won't listen. They throw Bible Verses after Bible Verse to defend their "God" Jesus.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
And you are throwing up a few quotes to attack "their" God Jesus... Whats your point? So its ok to attack but stupid to defend? Great logic.



reply posted on 3-10-2007 @ 12:14 AM by puzzled2
reply to post by LDragonFire


If you need to be told "You shall have no other gods before Me "
does that imply thats there's more than 1 that you could choose from?

If he has a son does that mean he has parents too?
Does he have a wife?
Does she have different parents?
Are the any siblings aunts uncles ......
But if he is his son he didn't give up anything, and if he didn't die then what was the scarifice on the cross.

See none of it makes sense to me.
Then theres the old kick the kid of of heaven until he behaves. After all how long is 33yrs to some one who never die?

Finally whats with the Virgin Mother - gotta be the biggest load of idols and worshipping before god that anyone can do...

Puzzled2


reply posted on 3-10-2007 @ 12:32 AM by MajorMalfunction
Originally posted by puzzled2

If you need to be told "You shall have no other gods before Me "
does that imply thats there's more than 1 that you could choose from?


When that was originally told, and then written down, yes. They didn't become true monotheists until the time of Abraham, if I remember correctly.


If he has a son does that mean he has parents too?


Not according to most theology I've heard. According to most Christians, god has always existed. So the universe can't have always existed, it requires a creator, but the creator has always existed and nobody created it. Does not make any kind of sense.

Does he have a wife?


He did, back before the time the religion became completely patriarchal and monotheistic. Her name was Asherah, the Queen of Heaven.

Does she have different parents?
Are the any siblings aunts uncles ......


Those are good questions. I don't have an answer.

But if he is his son he didn't give up anything, and if he didn't die then what was the scarifice on the cross.


A political execution of one of the many self-styled prophets roaming around Judea and the Middle East in those days. And somehow this one crucifixion out of the tens of thousands that Romans did over the course of their history became a religion in which people symbolically eat their god and drink his blood.

Finally whats with the Virgin Mother - gotta be the biggest load of idols and worshipping before god that anyone can do...


Funny you should say that. If you examine the Queen of Heaven mythology, she (Asherah) was also Isis, and has become the Virgin Mary. There is good reason to believe that some of the first human cults worshiped a female deity, and were matriarchal. Mary serves a purpose in bringing dualism and balance in a way to the Catholic religion, the ancient mother worship continuing on. Yahweh just isn't motherly, and sometimes people want a mother figure.



[edit on 3-10-2007 by MajorMalfunction]


reply posted on 3-10-2007 @ 03:32 AM by AncientVoid
reply to post by shearder


It's also just not right. No humans should be worshiped like a god. Just look at the pope...


reply posted on 3-10-2007 @ 04:14 AM by shearder
Originally posted by AncientVoid
reply to post by shearder


It's also just not right. No humans should be worshiped like a god. Just look at the pope...


Pope i agree! But read the link and then you will see that Mary is not worshiped.


reply posted on 3-10-2007 @ 05:38 AM by drdalet
Hi.
This topic starts with a commandment from the OT and continues with the holy trinity, which is NT.
First of all I believe you have to regard the OT and NT as two seperate books.
Secondly it is not true that the Bible "preaches" monotheism - it is more Henotheism, de choice of one God to be preferred over others. There are even different names for God in the Bible, the most famous are Elohim (plural, but used singular) and Yehova (or rather YHVH). Elohim is the Creator-God(s) and YHVH the God that interacts with his creation.
Another name for God is Eloah (the singular form of Elohim) - this is actually the name the Islam uses for God: Allah. This is the name that is used when God is to be worshipped and he shows His will (Inch' Allah - God's Will)
There are more names for God, like El- (used in combinations) and Adonai.

The Bible is an interesting book, but very difficult to understand. Just read Genesis 1 and 2 and try to understand every word - it is very difficult.

As for the NT and Jesus - Jesus being a half-God doesn't sound Jewish, but Greek and Roman. THEY had half-Gods. The Vatican is in Rome - not a coïncidence. Greeks and Romans had many Gods that had their own place within the minds of the people. But one God was more important then another. Zeus/Jupiter was the most important.
Just read the story of the three man/angles/God who visited Abraham and his wife, after eating (God eats!?) two of them go on their mission to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. What is that all about?

What about Isis, an Egyptian God, who was worshipped mostly by women in Rome. Isis was a woman with a child on her lap - she was replaced by Mary and child Jesus when Rome chose for Christianity.
Christianity has a lot of adaptations and therefore you can not compare OT and NT imho.


reply posted on 3-10-2007 @ 07:27 AM by LDragonFire
reply to post by shearder


You pray through Mary??

You are supposed to pray through the Blood of Jesus Christ! at least thats what the Christians say. Wasn't that the purpose of his sacrifice?, Mary lost her son, Jesus lost his life? Who would it make since to pray through.

Praying through some one is worshiping them. Didn't people pray through Idols so there Gods would listen to them?

They knew the Idols where not God, because they made them out of wood, stone, gold. They made monuments to there gods so there gods would listen to them.


reply posted on 3-10-2007 @ 07:38 AM by FreeThinkerIdealist
A big problem with this is belief relies on faith, if you have no faith or belief in it, it will of course seem nonsensical to you, and so will the explanation given by the ones with faith.

It would also follow, that, if you are told to prayer for understanding either you wouldn't, or, why would G-d give someone understanding that is praying without believing?

Would you invite someone into your home for a meal that put on a smile because they were hungry, but just prior to that they cursed you because they don't think much of you?


I am not trying to influence your beliefs (or lack of), they are yours and I will respect them. I can only speak for myself and what I feel, and honestly, that is all that is required of me ... since those will hear what they wish and follow what is in their heart ... as long as I have spoken it, I did my part.


So ... let me tell a story to relate the so-called Trinity in non-Biblical terms.


There was a man. He worked with a father, they got along well and were very productive.

On his first day off, he went fishing with a brother, they talked about numerous things.

On his second day off, he always invited a son to eat with his family to create and share many fond memories.

Then the following day he once again worked with the father.

Did he spend time with three different people? Or, did he spend time with the same person with three different titles?

Perception and titles can throw people off.


If you don't believe in anything, fine for you, don't force your views. If you believe in something good for you, don't force your views. Discuss peacefully from each side, great ... as long as there is no bickering or the I am right so you give up nonsense. It isn't a respectful way to act from either side, nor a good way to put forth your side. Remember, for every force, there is an equal and opposite force. You push, someone will push back with equal or greater force and it will increase until there is a war of words that is uncalled for.


I can respect the o.p. misunderstandings, but, if you read it (the whole book) through a few times, and use a more direct translation (such as the complete jewish Bible or hebrew and greek directly), you may see things differently. If you don't wish to, I respect that choice.

I think there was enough quotes already, so I just wanted to take a different approach and emphasize peace and calmness


reply posted on 3-10-2007 @ 08:42 AM by helen670
reply to post by LDragonFire


Hi,
As another member here said.......The Theotokos(Virgin Mary) is an intercessor on our behalf.
In the Old Testament,God clearly said to put Two cherubs on either side of the Arc.....Are they Idols?
Were they worshipped?
No, it is a remembrance........just as one would have a picture of a child or someone whom they wish to remember in their home or wallet ot what have you. .....they are reminded of them because the eyes see and are reminded.

The Theotokos(Virgin Mary) is an intercessor on our behalf and as are Saint because they led a humble life of prayer and fasting, as it was in the Old Testament and then followed into the New Testament.
The Wedding at which Jesus Christ appeared with his Mother needed more wine.....The Theotokos saw this and felt sorry for the people and guests, She asked Jesus Christ t help, and He did that because of her........
As with mans Law, we are represented by others for whatever reasons.......they act on our behalf.....
Sometimes we feel guilty and or conscience tells us that we are ashamed of something.....we ask a friend to intercede on our behalf....by doing so,we are being humble and with our head lowered, we hope to be forgiven for whatever reasons.
God Took on Human Form and became like man to show man his love for mankind....He allowed Himself to die a cruel death because that was the only way to have man again be one with God.
The First Sin was not sex.
God allowed man to eat of all the fruit on the trees in the garden, man chose to disobey that One rule......He chose death/cut himself being one with God..........Fasting!
The first Sin was to break the fast......
Sin entered into the whole earth.....changed nature and mans living.


reply posted on 3-10-2007 @ 10:34 AM by Sparky63
Many, it is true, who bow down, pray and light candles to, and kiss religious images do not view themselves as idolaters or image worshipers. For example, Catholics claim that they venerate images of Christ and Mary, not because the images themselves possess any divinity, but because of whom the images represent.

The World Book Encyclopedia states that
“in the Roman Catholic Church, images are venerated as symbols of the people represented by them.”

The Catholic clergy have preached that it is proper to venerate an image as long as the veneration is inferior in quality to that owed to God himself.

The reality is that these images are being venerated.

Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that such veneration is “an act of worship.” However, Jesus Christ ruled out the use of images as aids in approaching God when he said: “No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6) It is no surprise, then, that first-century Christians repudiated the use of images in worship.

In spite of all the historical and Scriptural evidence exposing the folly of rendering veneration to an image, professed Christians worldwide continue to bow and pray before images in their sincere search for God. Why?

Most Catholics don't even know this about their own history but prominent religious figures of the second, third, fourth, and fifth centuries C.E., such as Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea, Epiphanius, and Augustine, opposed the use of images in worship.

About the beginning of the fourth century C.E., at Elvira, Spain, a group of bishops formulated a number of important resolutions against the veneration of images. This famous Council of Elvira resulted in the banning of images from churches and in the establishment of severe sanctions against image worshipers.

These developments set the scene for one of the greatest controversies of history: the iconoclastic controversy of the eighth and ninth centuries. One historian states that this “bitter controversy lasted for a century and a half, and was the occasion of untold suffering” and that it was “one of the immediate causes of the division between the Eastern and Western empires.”

The word “iconoclast” comes from the Greek words eikon, meaning “image,” and klastes, meaning “breaker.” Living up to its name, this movement against images included the removal and destruction of images throughout Europe. Several anti-image laws were put into effect to abolish the use of images in worship. The veneration of images became a heated political issue that dragged emperors and popes, generals and bishops into a veritable theological war.

And this was more than a war of words. The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, by McClintock and Strong, states that after Emperor Leo III issued an edict against the use of images in churches, the people “rose up in masses against the edict, and violent disturbances, especially at Constantinople,” became a daily occurrence. Clashes between the imperial forces and the people resulted in executions and massacres. Monks were cruelly persecuted.

Hundreds of years later, during the 16th century, a number of public debates took place in Zurich, Switzerland, on the issue of images in churches. As a result, a decree demanding the removal of all images from the churches was enacted. Some reformers were noted for their intense and often violent condemnation of image worship.

Even today there is a wide schism among modern theologians regarding the use of images in worship.
Pages: <<  2    3    4    5    6    7    8  >>    ^^TOP^^



Why are these 10 figures just like Jesus Christ??
  Posted 8 days ago with 14 member flags
I am an imposter in Church
  Posted 7 days ago with 11 member flags
What Kind of Christianity Is This?
  Posted 18 days ago with 7 member flags
The Great Flood Was Caused By A Comet?
  Posted 14 days ago with 7 member flags
Advert claiming cure through prayer is banned
  Posted 7 days ago with 7 member flags
The real Jewish people. Torah Jews Against ZIONISM
  Posted 16 days ago with 6 member flags
The World Is in Desperate Need of Heretics!
  Posted 12 days ago with 6 member flags