A contradiction in the bible

SCORES of Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek images fill museums today. Statues that were once the object of fervent veneration are now on display as mere works of ancient art. Their power was only in the imagination of those who worshiped them. With the eventual passing away of the peoples who venerated them, the supposed power of these images also vanished. The images were exposed as impotent—which in truth they had always been—inanimate objects of wood, stone, or metal.

What about the images that are being venerated and worshiped by people today? Are these images any more powerful than the ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek images? Have they truly been instrumental in helping man get closer to God?

With the passing of every generation, mankind seems to be drifting further and further away from God. And what can all the images in the world do about it? If left unattended, they collect dust and eventually corrode or rot. They cannot take care of themselves, let alone do anything for humans. More important, however, what does the Bible have to say on this matter?

Costly, Elaborate, but Useless

Not surprisingly, the Bible exposes images as useless and completely incapable of helping their devotees get closer to God. Though religious images are usually costly and elaborate, the Bible shows their true worth when it says:

“Their idols are silver and gold, the work of the hands of earthling man. A mouth they have, but they cannot speak; eyes they have, but they cannot see; ears they have, but they cannot hear. A nose they have, but they cannot smell. Hands are theirs, but they cannot feel. Feet are theirs, but they cannot walk; they utter no sound with their throat. Those making them will become just like them, all those who are trusting in them.”—Psalm 115:4-8.

Not only does the Bible expose idols as worthless but it also speaks condemningly regarding images and their worshipers: “They are like a scarecrow of a cucumber field, and cannot speak. Without fail they are carried, for they cannot take any steps. Do not be afraid because of them, for they can do nothing calamitous and, what is more, the doing of any good is not with them. Every man has behaved so unreasoningly as not to know. Every metalworker will certainly feel shame because of the carved image; for his molten image is a falsehood, and there is no spirit in them. They are vanity, a work of mockery.”—Jeremiah 10:5, 14, 15.

Praying to images of Mary or the Saints or even Jesus is useless. All prayer needsto be directed to God. Jesus is the mediator, no one else.

reply to post by LDragonFire


Simple. The New Testament and "christianity are made up. Complete fiction.
Or, Simple # 2: Judaism and its spin-offs are natural evolvements of stories actual ancient facts. That is the facts left by the Sumerians about a race of extra-terrestrial beings that genetically engineered us by implanting some of their own genetic material into females of an intelligent hominid species. Voila'! Here we are today. That ET race had a "Royalty" and the "King" Anu. He was distant (..."from a distance ... tra la la ..."). He sent his sons to Earth to get the gold. Those sons were Enlil and Enki. Enki is the one who blended his genetic information to make us. He is the "Lord" spoken of in the Torah and Bible. He is kind and loving and helpful. Enlil, on the other hand, hated his brother and by extension, us. He is the "-EL" in the Torah and Bible and the Allah in the Koran. Enlil tried to exterminate us but Enki managed to save us (the "savior" Son of God).
Interesting, eh? Read more at www.sitchin.com I personally believe that Zecharia Sitchin is correct but I also believe that the Torah was written as one discrete volume (and is just one example as any other of how simple minded and petty we are) by a seer-savant (possibly Moses, who knows?) under Spirit and/or ET direction to camouflage and carry the true text through time. The "true text", you ask? The Bible Code, of course.

Originally posted by helen670
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........

What example did Jesus himself set in referring to his mother?

John 2:3, 4, JB: “When they ran out of wine [at a wedding feast in Cana], since the wine provided for the wedding was all finished, the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine’. Jesus said, ‘Woman, why turn to me [“what is that to me and to thee,” Dy]? My hour has not come yet.’”

When Jesus was a child he subjected himself to his mother and his adoptive father. But now that he was grown he kindly but firmly rejected Mary’s direction. She humbly accepted the correction.

Another interesting statement made by Jesus.

Luke 11:27, 28, JB: “Now as he [Jesus] was speaking, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said, ‘Happy the womb that bore you and the breasts you sucked!’ But he replied, ‘Still happier those who hear the word of God and keep it!’”

This would certainly have been a fine opportunity for Jesus to pay special honor to his mother if that had been appropriate. He did not do so.

reply to post by LDragonFire


Mr. LDragonFire (I am assuming you are male). Are you married? Do you have a MySpace site? Oh nevermind. You're probably a kid. I'm a granny. Darn ...

Originally posted by whirlwind


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.

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?


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

The Fruit was not sex. If it was, why would Eve, after having eaten it, noticed that it was good for "food".

Gen 3:6 6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Bold added by me for empasis.

God had put this tree in the middle of the garden, but the account also states that there were other trees in the garde that they may eat from. If the tree of knowlege was a metaphor for sex, of what are all the rest of the trees a metaphor? Adam & Eve were authorized to eat from them.

The simplest answer is that it was a tree producing real fruit. The fruit was not Adam or Eves property, it was not given to them. This was a test or symbol of the loyalty and obedience to Gods law.


1 John 4:8 was added as a reference noting that God is Love. He would not have given them the commandment to multiply and fill the earth and then condemn them for doing so.


[edit on 3-10-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 3-10-2007 by Sparky63]

I'm continually amazed by people's so called understanding of topics they either:

A. Oppose almost militantly or
B. Do scant research on or
C. Mouth their personal opinion as fact.

Religions seem to cause the greatest amount of this problem, whether it be Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Bahia, Buddhist, Hindu... whatever. When you only look at a limited part of discussion from a biased viewpoint in the first place, with no firsthand knowledge of said religion, how can you speak authoritatively like many do here? I just don't get it.

Your getting the two books confused. The "Bibe" is made up of two books. The first large book is called the Old Testament. The Newer, smaller book is called the New Testament.

You'll find alot of meaning in the Old Testament if you know how to generalize and read between the lines. The birth of our human species is explained, though the supernatural is not involved. It's all quite simple and literal. You just have to translate what was seen and written in the knowledge comprehesion of that time into the knowledge that we've accumulated today.

The New Testament is nothing but plagiarism from previous centuries.

I believe God is real. But, I don't believe that It has much of anything to do with what's taught and practiced today. Modern Religion is a tool devised to divide and conquer mass populations of the world.

EDIT: To clarify my first statement: The 1st Commandment was first named in the Old Testament. Though references were made in the Old Testament, generally it wasn't until the New Testament and Jesus that we interpret the Holy Trinity.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by tyranny22]

While the Genesis account may appear very simple, what it says has deep significance. The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad was not poisonous but wholesome, literally “good for food.” So God’s restriction regarding this fruit was the only thing that made eating of it bad.

The tree was therefore a fitting symbol of the right to determine or set the standards of good and bad, which right God reserved for Himself by forbidding Adam to eat thereof. This prohibition emphasized man’s proper dependence on God as his Sovereign Ruler. By obedience the first man and woman could demonstrate that they respected God’s right to make known to them what was “good” (divinely approved) and what was “bad” (divinely condemned). Disobedience on their part would have signified a rebellion against God’s sovereignty.

This understanding of matters is acknowledged in a footnote of the modern Catholic translation known as The Jerusalem Bible: “The first sin was an attack on God’s sovereignty, a sin of pride.”

OK, here is my problem with Christianity. I used to be a religious child, then as I grew i developed questions that no one could answer and was actually chastised for questioning "the bible". Here are the main problems I have.

1. Christianity can be traced historically to a specific period of time when it began. Are all people living prior to Christ doomed to hell because it wasn't even around yet? I was told that these people get a free pass because they hadn't heard the word of god yet. How stupid do you think I am?

2. What about Native tribes deep in the Amazon who have never had contact with "our god" "our religion" - do they go to hell?. Again I was told that since they had not heard god's word then they get a free pass. They would go to hell if a missionary had told them of Christ and they refused to believe it. That is laughable. How can people buy into this.

3. My biggest problem is being told that the one only unforgivable sin is to question the existence of God. Talk about fear mongering. If god was a loving father would he not be proud of independent thought and reason.

Undoubtedly someone will reply that you simply must have faith and these issues become pointless. Sorry my evangelical friend that is flawed to the extreme.

In closing I feel the need to add that I do believe in a soul (life force, spirit, however you choose to label it), Sadly however i believe that once we die so does our soul, no afterlife. I hope my belief on that point changes some day, because it would seem that makes our lives here pointless, but can't help the way i feel. Organized religions have not even come close to giving me those answers.

Originally posted by The Oak

1. Christianity can be traced historically to a specific period of time when it began. Are all people living prior to Christ doomed to hell because it wasn't even around yet? I was told that these people get a free pass because they hadn't heard the word of god yet. How stupid do you think I am?

This is an interesting question. Consider John 5:28, 29:

“Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice [the voice of Jesus] and come out.”

The Greek word translated “memorial tombs” is not the plural form of ta′phos [grave, an individual burial place] or hai′des [gravedom, the common grave of dead mankind] but is the plural dative form of mne·mei′on [remembrance, memorial tomb]. It lays stress on preserving memory of the deceased person. Not those whose memory was blotted out in Gehenna because of unforgivable sins but persons remembered by God will be resurrected with the opportunity to live forever.—

Acts 24:15: “I have hope toward God . . . that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.”

Both those who lived in harmony with God’s righteous ways and people who, out of ignorance, did unrighteous things will be resurrected. The Bible does not answer all our questions as to whether certain specific individuals who have died will be resurrected. But we can be confident that God, who knows all the facts, will act impartially, with justice tempered by mercy that does not ignore his righteous standards. Compare Genesis 18:25.

Rev. 20:13, 14: “The sea gave up those dead in it, and death and Hades gave up those dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. And death and Hades were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire.”

So, those whose death was attributable to Adamic sin will be raised, whether they were buried at sea or in Hades, the common earthly grave of dead mankind.

2. What about Native tribes deep in the Amazon who have never had contact with "our god" "our religion" - do they go to hell?. Again I was told that since they had not heard god's word then they get a free pass. They would go to hell if a missionary had told them of Christ and they refused to believe it. That is laughable. How can people buy into this.

See explanation above. Even from our imperfect human standpaont it would not be just to condemn them to everlasting destruction due to circumstances that were beyond their control.

Extolling God, Moses wrote:

“The Rock, perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he.” (Deuteronomy 32:3, 4)

I trust God to do what is right.


[edit on 3-10-2007 by Sparky63]

reply to post by The Oak

OK, here is my problem with Christianity. I used to be a religious child, then as I grew i developed questions that no one could answer and was actually chastised for questioning "the bible". Here are the main problems I have.

1. Christianity can be traced historically to a specific period of time when it began. Are all people living prior to Christ doomed to hell because it wasn't even around yet? I was told that these people get a free pass because they hadn't heard the word of god yet. How stupid do you think I am?

No, those from that time are not doomed at all. When Christ was crucified, before He rose in His transfigured body, He went to those souls and offered them the same salvation He offers us:

1 Peter 3:19 By which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison,

20.Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

2. What about Native tribes deep in the Amazon who have never had contact with "our god" "our religion" - do they go to hell?. Again I was told that since they had not heard god's word then they get a free pass. They would go to hell if a missionary had told them of Christ and they refused to believe it. That is laughable. How can people buy into this.

Romans 7:8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves;

15.Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

16.In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.


So....It isn't considered a sin if they don't know the law, however, they are still judged on how they lived their life. Our souls know right from wrong. We know it is wrong to murder, rape, etc.

3. My biggest problem is being told that the one only unforgivable sin is to question the existence of God. Talk about fear mongering. If god was a loving father would he not be proud of independent thought and reason.

There is only one unforgivable sin but it is NOT to question His existence.

First, only God's elect can commit the sin and it can only be commited in the end of days:

Luke 12:9 But he that denieth Me before men shall be denied before the angels of God.

10.And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven.

11.And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say:

12.For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.


That is the unforgivable sin.

Undoubtedly someone will reply that you simply must have faith and these issues become pointless. Sorry my evangelical friend that is flawed to the extreme.

In closing I feel the need to add that I do believe in a soul (life force, spirit, however you choose to label it), Sadly however i believe that once we die so does our soul, no afterlife. I hope my belief on that point changes some day, because it would seem that makes our lives here pointless, but can't help the way i feel. Organized religions have not even come close to giving me those answers.

We do continue on. If you haven't received answers you should continue to search...the answers are there.


.......Whirlwind

reply to post by Sparky63

The Fruit was not sex. If it was, why would Eve, after having eaten it, noticed that it was good for "food".


Gen 3:6 6And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Bold added by me for empasis.

The expression "good for food", as used there is "Lust of the flesh", while "pleasant to the eyes" is "Lust of the eyes." ( E.W. Bullinger, Companion Bible.)

God had put this tree in the middle of the garden, but the account also states that there were other trees in the garde that they may eat from. If the tree of knowlege was a metaphor for sex, of what are all the rest of the trees a metaphor? Adam & Eve were authorized to eat from them.

The simplest answer is that it was a tree producing real fruit. The fruit was not Adam or Eves property, it was not given to them. This was a test or symbol of the loyalty and obedience to Gods law.

Yes, there were other trees and they offered real food. The tree of knowledge of good and evil wasn't a metaphor for sex but for Satan . He was the serpent and held that knowledge. He at one time was good as God loved him and elevated him to the highest of positions and he was also evil. At his appearance in the garden he had already rebelled.

Christ was the Tree of Life and Satan was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There is much symbology contained in a tree. They have a trunk as we do, we have limbs as a tree does, we are rooted in our life as a tree is in the ground.

Jesus also made reference to trees:

Mark 8:23 And He took the blind man by the hand, and led him out of the town; and when He had spit on his eyes, and put His hands upon him, He asked him if he saw ought.

24.And he looked up, and said, "I see men as trees, walking."

25.After that He put His hands again upon his eyes, and made him look up: and he was restored, and saw every man clearly.


In everything Christ did He was teaching. We know He wouldn't need two attempts to heal the man's sight. Could the phrase he uttered, "I see men as trees", be for us too, so that when we are no longer blind we will see the secret from the Garden, we will know about the trees?


There are many references to trees throughout the Bible and perhaps the most important is the fig tree. The story of the fig carries through the Bible, beginning when Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves, Christ telling us to "learn the parable of the fig tree" to a fig tree "casting her untimely figs" in Revelation. It is important!

1 John 4:8 was added as a reference noting that God is Love. He would not have given them the commandment to multiply and fill the earth and then condemn them for doing so.

That is true but He didn't condemn them for having children. He condemned them for the act they commited in the Garden and it wasn't taking a bite of a piece of fruit.


Take the first prophecy:

Gen.3:6And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel


Seed - Strong's #2232...zara, a prim. root, to sow; fig. to disseminate, plant, fructify: - bear, conceive seed, set with, sow (-er), yield
#2233 zera, from 2232; seed; fig, fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity: - carnally, child, fruitful, seed )-time) sowing-time.
32234 zera (Chald.) posterity: - seed

The meaning is even more evident in the Greek.

11 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtility so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Beguiled is #1818 exapatao - to seduce wholly - beguile, deceive.

In Matthew 13, where Christ is teaching about the sowing of seed He tells us:

Matthew 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

28. He said unto them, 'An enemy hath done this.......

The seed Christ was teaching about is:

#4690 Greek, sperma, the male sperm, by impl. offspring.


So....as you see from these verses, and others, Christ is telling us what happened in the garden had nothing to do with a piece of fruit.


........Whirlwind

Originally posted by humanunnaki
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

Mr. LDragonFire (I am assuming you are male). Are you married? Do you have a MySpace site? Oh nevermind. You're probably a kid. I'm a granny. Darn ...

I'm 38 and I have 3 kids, no myspace. No great grand kids for a while I hope, 2 boys 14 and 13, one girl 10.

I would like to do a recap on this thread to date. Unfortunately I must work, and I can't devote enough time to do this right now.

The original topic was that the trinity goes against the first commandment, and I haven't seen Anything that disproved this. There are good argument for and against, but the trinity was not used till the 4th century well after the formation of Christianity. This to me was one of the first corruptions of the faith/religion. Inserting a form of paganism believe into the faith/belief of Christianity is possibly a effort to appeal to pagans of that day, I don't really know.

The original sin discussion, stating that sex was the original sin, I just don't agree with it, to me it doesn't hold water. If the original sin was sex, the bible would say that, IMHO. Really its still unclear to me exactly what sin occurred when Adam and Eve ate the fruit, pride is the best one described thus far. Its possible that they covet the fruit, it really doesn't explain Why they did what they did, other than They willfully disobeyed God witch would be sin enough.

We definitely need a recap

Originally posted by LDragonFire

3 In one, end of story. You have to think quantumly. If you can't, then why are you bothering to critique something you don't understand?

I couldn't read everything, maybe this was posted, but let me explain why this is not a problem:

God made man in His image.... if this is was God's physical likeness, we would all look the same, but God is on a level above us, and made us how God sees things....

God has a mind: The father
God has a spirit: The Holy Spirit
God has a body: The Word, thus becomes Jesus when taking the flesh of men

Man was made with:

A mind: You think and deside what you want to do
A spirit: Silent in sin unless saved, worry about if yours is going up or down
A body: What most people listen too, and you look at every day (even the fat ones)

God being God, His Mind/Body/Spirit can work independent, yet as the same being. Like a pure ownerer microing keys on the left hand while double clicking with the right hand and thinking of eco at the same time, God is at a level that is purely awesome. For those non-gamers, God can think, act, and feel all at the same time and be perfect at all three.

Your flesh talks to you. Ask anyone addicted to smoking what their flesh is like a couple hours after not having a cig, and you'll learn how powerful your flesh can influence you. Ask a crack addict why he shot the pizza guy and you will learn that yes, flesh can rule over mind. Well, spirit can rule over mind, if you allow it, in the same way. Some do it for the good way, some the bad way.

Anyway, God is one being, but like us is made up of 3 parts. If you think your flesh does not need your mind, well then go have your brain removed.

It's not a contradiction, it's just an excuse to justify not doing what you know deep down you need to do, and that's listen to the bible.

reply to post by fbipeeper


If you read the above posts, you would found out that your comments have already been countered.

What's with the body talking to you? It's all to do with the mind...

Originally posted by LDragonFire
1. You shall have no other gods before Me

The first commandment is simple in its wording; there can be no other explanations for what is said or what it means. Yet modern Christianity does not practice monotheism in a pure form. Christianity teaches and preaches the Trinity The belief that the Father[1] the Son[2] and the Holy Spirit[3] are of one God.

This too me is incorrect and a direct violation of the first commandment.

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 [KJV]
This is a direct violation of the first commandment. A contradiction.

The Father and Son are clearly separate beings. The Father meaning The God as in You shall have NO other Gods before ME. Then We have the Son of God, that said

"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me.” John 14:1 [KJV]

"If you love me, you will obey what I command.” John 14:15 [KJV]

Again they are separate beings. Separate Gods

It was Jesus who gave the Commandment. He is the God of the Old Testiment under the Direction of the Father. Regarding the Trinity, they are not 1 Being, they are most definatly 3 separate beings acting in accordance as one. Think of a Command Structure in the Military and you will have it. The Commander under the direction of the Admiral, his word is as if it were the Admiral himself.

reply to post by arcnaver


Um, no. they are one. Is it possibly for you to think quantumly? I'll give you an example. An Electron travels, alone, through slits. It reaches and is shown to go through both slits. It's still the same electron. It is still there, it just became 2 and one at the same time, then became one again. Add one to this phenomenon, and you get what the holy trinity is. Simple.

[edit on 3-10-2007 by Gorman91]