A contradiction in the bible

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by fbipeeper

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

The Holy Spirit is also knows as Shekhinah. The Shekhinah is what causes prophets to prophesy and King David to compose his Psalms. The Shechinah manifests itself as a form of joy, connected with prophecy. The Shekhinah in the New Testament is equal to the presence or indwelling of the Spirit of the Lord in the believer, drawing parallels to the presence of God in Solomon's Temple. Shekhinah, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, call it what you want but all are the Divine Presence of God. In Biblical Hebrew the word means literally to settle, inhabit, or dwell.

It is also commonly known as the female aspect of God. Many Gnostic texts depict the Shekhinah as Sophia / creator of the material world. according to her various capacities, is also the Universal Mother, the Mother of the Living or Resplendent Mother, the Power on High, She-of-the-left-hand (as opposed to Christ, understood as her husband and he of the Right Hand).



[edit on 3-10-2007 by Raphael]




posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 03:32 AM
link   
i think to look at scripture in the bible and interpret it literally is being shallow by its very definition. someone who is shallow is someone who looks only at the surface and makes judgments from it. a spiritual person on the other hand sees past the surface. faith is deep by nature. when you try to rationalize the nature of god based on text, you sound like a fool. this applies not only to the atheist thinker but to the religiously devout thinker as well.

to quote the zohar:
"the narratives of the doctrine are its cloak...the simple look only at the garment- that is, upon the narrative of the doctrine; more they know not."



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by soulrebel312
 


If you look deep enough, you'll find anything you want...



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 03:42 AM
link   
thats the key for all samsaric existence

[edit on 4-10-2007 by soulrebel312]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by soulrebel312
 


huh?

The only true meaning is what the person who write it thought and tried to communicate across.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 04:12 AM
link   
i don't disagree.
however, i find that there is a universal truth that everyone "knows" (because it is the divinity that is the essence of our being), but the ego separates us and keeps us from realizing that truth. the fact that nobody can even agree to disagree on issues relating to "the truth" or "the nature of god" is testament to the reality of illusion and delusion that we live under.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Here are some arguments against the trinity:


1. The Trinity doctrine is not taught anywhere in scripture, but trinities were common in Paganism and were prominent in Egypt and Babylon.
2. The beginnings of recognition of this doctrine started at the Council of Nicea approximately 325 AD. Hundreds of years after the last book in the Bible was written.
3. The Council of Nicea was organized by the Roman Emperor Constantine and he had the final say on matters that he had little understanding of.
4. Creed followed creed, and eventually idols were accepted as forms that we can worship God through, and Mary was exalted to be the Mother of God and worship of the saints was sanctioned.
5. The organized church was built on top of these creeds. The creeds were and are the foundation for many of today's churches/denominations. These denominations are different to the Body of Christ spoken of in the scriptures. This shows us that most denominations are still rooted in a creed and in particular the Trinity doctrine. Most denominations still have the Trinity doctrine as a foundation and this doctrine originally came from Babylon.
6. The mother of these denominations the Roman Catholic Church murdered approximately 50 million people, had armies and banned access to scripture to Christians. This time is known today as the Dark Ages.
7. Some relief came during the Reformation where the teachings and authority of the Catholic Church were challenged. The Reformation restored many truths back to the Body of Christ.
8. As a result many new denominations started up and unfortunately they held onto some of the creeds and in particular the Trinity doctrine.
Is the Trinity doctrine taught in the bible?


This pretty sums up most of my argument to this point.

From a historical point of view it seems strange to me that one of the pillars of Christianity didn't come into existence or wasn't recognized until 300 years after the death of Christ. On this point alone, I think its strange that we are encouraged not to question this doctrine and worse still, the the circumstances in which this doctrine came about should lead any clear thinking person to be at least suspicious.
I think the fruit of this doctrine is evident. If we exalt Jesus as God, then why not exalt Mary who after gave birth to Jesus. We can now see how Mary came to be called the Mother of God and how worship of the saints was sanctioned. So these creeds became the new foundation and on top of this foundation men built their churches/denominations.

IMHO it is clearly a doctrine of man, and violates the 1st commandment.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Here is another view on this topic:

Christians are faced with a dilemma. The Bible says in the Old Testament, "I, even I, am the Lord; and besides me there is no savior" (Isa. 43:11). "Salvation belongeth unto the Lord . . ." (Psalms 3:8. "For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour . . ." (Isaiah 43:3). According to the Old Testament, only God can be the Savior. In order for Jesus Christ to be the Savior, he must also be God.
Trinity advocates use:
"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30);
". . .he that hath seen me hath seen the Father" (John 17:22);
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God" (John 1"1);
". . . that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me and I in Him"
". . .he that hath seen me hath seen the Father. . ." (John 14:9)
". . .Holy Father keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are."John 17:11
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Colossians 3:8,9.


These are good arguments but there are more arguments against the trinity, there is clearly a contradiction both in the bible and Christianity since 3rd and 4th centuries, if there was not a contradiction, we would not be discussing this here and now.


The Bible has many more verses denying the Trinity than it has confirming it:
"Why callest me good? There is none good but one, that is God" (Matthew 19:17)
". . .for my Father is greater than I. . ." (John 14:28)
"My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." (John 7:16)
"O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt." (Matthew 26:39)
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32)
"Who has gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God" (Peter 3:22)
There are, of course, more scriptures. The passages quoted are a representative of the opposing concepts.
Here is the dilemma. Christians know that in order for Jesus to be the savior of mankind, he must also be God. The bible says so. If he is not God, then he cannot be the savior. His death would be meaningless. So Christians have invented the Trinity to explain Christ's divinity. He is man. He is God. He is both. He must be in order to be the savior. Unfortunately, he is ambivalent at best. Sometimes he claims to be one with God. Sometimes he admits God knows things which he doesn't know and does things which he cannot do. Christians go to nearly any length to prove the Trinity including the declaration that its a "mystery" and we "just don't have the mind to understand it". Is the bible the perfect, inerrant word of God? The Christian created Trinity doctrine and the contradictions which must accompany the doctrine sound a resounding "No"! So how did the Trinity doctrine/dogma come into existence? The Trinity Doctrine/Dogma Exposed


Using the argument that we just can't comprehend it is a coop out. Its a False doctrine, and if it really is a false doctrine what will happen to all that believe in it?

Obey the commandments or not.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 



You are wise, young man. I have a daughter 37. Two grandsons in highschool. If the draft comes back in '08 as some have claimed it will, they will be soldiers. My children's generation missed having to be drafted because of the my hippy generation's brainwashing by the far left. I wonder how many generations have been so fortunate (or unfortunate, depending on how one looks at the subject. Our current cultural decay caused by drugs and video games, etc can probably be shown to be caused by not sending our sons into the military for a strong lesson in growing up).



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 

Jesus(Jeshua) IS Lord!!!

Why beat around the bush, when you can have a direct relationship with the embodiment of scripture; Jeshua!???
Ask God if he is real, but be ready to surrender your soul to him. Ask Jesus to forgive everything you've done wrong.
God wants YOU more than you want him!!!
Get a 60$(I think that's the price) Strong's concordance, a King James bible and study.


[edit on 4-10-2007 by Clearskies]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 



This pretty sums up most of my argument to this point.


From a historical point of view it seems strange to me that one of the pillars of Christianity didn't come into existence or wasn't recognized until 300 years after the death of Christ. On this point alone, I think its strange that we are encouraged not to question this doctrine and worse still, the the circumstances in which this doctrine came about should lead any clear thinking person to be at least suspicious.
I think the fruit of this doctrine is evident. If we exalt Jesus as God, then why not exalt Mary who after gave birth to Jesus. We can now see how Mary came to be called the Mother of God and how worship of the saints was sanctioned. So these creeds became the new foundation and on top of this foundation men built their churches/denominations.

IMHO it is clearly a doctrine of man, and violates the 1st commandment.



I believe you should question any doctrine if they are man-made. That doesn't mean they aren't correct but does mean they should be questioned.

I personally don't spend any time on the Trinity as I don't believe it matters if you do or do not believe in it, as long as you do know that there is a Father in Heaven, His Son died for our sins and a Holy Spirit that guides us in our life.

To say that elevating Jesus to the status of God would be like placing Mary in that same position isn't true at all. We must believe in Christ to receive salvation, He is the judge of our souls...........He is God. Mary is "blessed among all women", but she is not a god or goddess.


As far as the Trinity, it is just a word and the concept is something everyone can work out on their own, or not (it isn't a "go to hell" issue) and shouldn't be a driving force in one's belief.......that is my personal view only.


.......Whirlwind



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


I'm not a Christian anymore, but I still don't see this as a contradiction... my dad explained it to me this way once... God is in three parts, God (the mind), Jesus (the flesh), and the Holy Spirit (the soul) and He made us in his own image to have a mirroring trinity of mind, body, and spirit as one...



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   


Of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus' genealogy. The accounts in the two gospels are substantially different, and various theories have been proposed to explain the discrepancies.[13] Both accounts, however, trace his line back to King David and from there to Abraham. These lists are identical between Abraham and David, but they differ between David and Joseph. Matthew starts with Solomon and proceeds through the kings of Judah to the last king, Jeconiah. After Jeconiah, the line of kings terminated when Babylon conquered Judah. Thus, Matthew shows that Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of Israel. Luke's genealogy is longer than Matthew's; it goes back to Adam and provides more names between David and Jesus.

en.wikipedia.org...

Gosh, one gospel says one thing and another gospel says something else? Why, that would be a contradiction, and thus, an error in the Bible. By the very nature of the Bible's claims, just one error is enough to indicate the falsehood of the entire religion.



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation



Of the four gospels, only Matthew and Luke give accounts of Jesus' genealogy. The accounts in the two gospels are substantially different, and various theories have been proposed to explain the discrepancies.[13] Both accounts, however, trace his line back to King David and from there to Abraham. These lists are identical between Abraham and David, but they differ between David and Joseph. Matthew starts with Solomon and proceeds through the kings of Judah to the last king, Jeconiah. After Jeconiah, the line of kings terminated when Babylon conquered Judah. Thus, Matthew shows that Jesus is the legal heir to the throne of Israel. Luke's genealogy is longer than Matthew's; it goes back to Adam and provides more names between David and Jesus.

en.wikipedia.org...

Gosh, one gospel says one thing and another gospel says something else? Why, that would be a contradiction, and thus, an error in the Bible. By the very nature of the Bible's claims, just one error is enough to indicate the falsehood of the entire religion.




It isn't a contradiction. The lineage given in Matthew is that of Joseph, the step-father of Christ. This shows His legal claim to the Kingship. Luke contains the lineage of Christ through His mother Mary. Notice in the Luke genealogy (3:23) it stated He was (as was supposed) the Son of Joseph.

"As was supposed" means "as reckoned by law", as in "in-law". Both lineages are from David, one through King Solomon and that of Mary through Solomon's brother Nathan.


There is no error so please don't attribute falsehood to the text. Some things may not be understood but it doesn't make them wrong. We just need to dig deeper for the meaning.



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



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Sparky63
 






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.



If the "fruit" was wholesome why would it be restricted? How could a literal tree have knowledge of good or evil? It was an entity.




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.”



I realize it has been explained as a "sin of pride" but it is more than that, as you said, "While the Genesis account may appear very simple, what it says has deep significance." The simple, or top layer would be pride but there is a deeper truth.


Rev.1:18 I am He That liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Christ is telling us He holds the keys of hell and death as He is about to teach us something.........it must be very important!

Rev.2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the First and the Last, Which was dead, and is alive;

9.I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty (but thou art rich), and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

10.Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

11.He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.'



Rev.3:7And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; 'These things saith He That is Holy, He That is True, He That hath the key of David, He That openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth;

8.I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept My word, and hast not denied My name.

9.Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

10.Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world to try them that dwell upon the earth.



Of those seven churches in Revelation, Christ approved of only two, Smyrna and Philadelphia. What they had in common that the other churches didn't do was teach who the Kenites are, those of the synagogue of Satan. That teaching gave them the Key of David, a key that unlocks scripture and once it is understood it can't be taken away. It will allow them to go through the tribulation of the hour of temptation, even if being cast into prison.


It is important to know who those are that "say they are Jews but are not
and are of the synagogue of Satan". All that began back in the garden and had nothing to do with taking a piece of fruit.


........Whirlwind



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by whirlwind
 




Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.Contradictions in the Bible


Really, the list on there is pretty long.


[edit on 4-10-2007 by mattifikation]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by AotearoaSon


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!!!!


"Gods not a woman / He's a big fat white guy in the sky / And the deserts are reflections of his eyes" - Sage Francis

This has been an interesting thread, one of the few blah blah bible contradiction ones i've ever read and not wanted to go throw up after. Although i haven't read to the end yet so you guys better not disappoint me.

I'm not Christian, i agree with alot of what jesus said but not much of what god does. But in the end, the bible was writen by PEOPLE who were trying to CONVERT PAGANS to their way of life whether they actually believed OR just wanted power and control. Thats probably how the trinity got TURNED into THE TRINITY. Personaly, i think people should worship jesus instead of god. But then again, im very angry(and drunk) person. Also, he should have forceen the problems that us having a concept of him would have caused and never introduced himself. When it comes down to it, y does it matter what someone believes as long as it makes everyone else happy...

People keep trying to say:
1!=3
3!=1 (sorry bout this i program computers)
x!=y
god!=jesus!=holy spirit

but you know there is the whole thing with complexe numbers they dont teach in math 101. So who knows how it works in other deminsions/universes/releams.

Its been good rambling to yall so im out...


or am I?



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   
I'm posting this again, but, can you people think quantumly? Can you not imagine one thing being other things also? Electrons do it all the time, why not God?



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation



Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.Contradictions in the Bible


Really, the list on there is pretty long.


[edit on 4-10-2007 by mattifikation]

This is a good question that deserves an answer.

There is a good explanation for this. that nullifies any supposed contradiction.

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7)

Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right.

Notice that Matthew does not say ‘Joseph became father to Jesus’ but that he was “the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born.” Luke is even more pointed when, after showing earlier that Jesus was actually the Son of God by Mary (Lu 1:32-35), he says: “Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.

So How does Heli come into the Picture?

Please note: Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.

Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote:

“This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genus matris non vocatur genus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—Commentary on Luke, 1981, p. 129.


the bottom line is that Heli was Mary's Father & Jesus maternal grandfather.
Joseph was Heli's son in law, thus the phrase

“Jesus . . . being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of Heli.”—Lu 3:23.


Joseph’s being called the “son of Heli” is understood to mean that he was the son-in-law of Heli. While not listing her, Luke evidently traces the natural descent of Jesus’ mother Mary from David.

I know that this is a rather lengthy explanation but is it correct. It may seem a little convoluted to us because of the different social norms & customs, but it would have been very clear to the first century Christians.



[edit on 4-10-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 4-10-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 4-10-2007 by Sparky63]



posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


There is evidence of electrons. Not so with god.





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join