Should Christians do away with the Bible?

reply to post by Christ!

I'm sorry but the Bible, both Old and New Testaments tell us Not to worship anything but God. We worship and give praise He who created everything, NOT the things he created, or at least that's what we should be doing.

In the King James Old Testament, in the Ten commandants, it says,

"3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

6And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

Not that we can't appreciate everything that he made. When I see a glorious sunset, or a beautiful waterfall, or the sparkling glitter in the petals of certain types of flowers (ever really looked closely?) I say, wow God, thanks for making all these beautiful things, for me, and all of mankind. And even ugly things are created for some purpose. God has a plan for everything He made!

Earth is not alive as an entity, and the spirit of life that is in all things came from God.

reply to post by justamomma

When I read your post here, it made me wonder what was going on in your life at the time that made you start to question these things. It also made me wonder if you are now going through training to convert to Judaism. Are you?

I have to admit, though, it did make me think. There is a difference, especially the names that are left out. So I started doing a little research. (Thank God for the internet!)

What I found was very interesting, and makes me believe MORE THAN EVER that Jesus Christ is the risen Lord.

Mary's genealogy goes through NATHAN (a son of David) not Solomon, Heli was Mary's father, but BOTH Mary and Joseph were from the line of David.

Interestingly, Joseph's line was not ELIGIBLE to be a part of the kingly succession, as stated below:

In the genealogy in Matthew 1, notice one name, Jechonias (Jeconiah), in verse 11. If Joseph had been Jesus' father according to the flesh, He could never have occupied the throne, for God's word barred the way. There had been a curse on this royal line since the days of Jeconiah. In Jeremiah 22:30 we read, Thus says the Lord: write this man down as childless, a man who shall not prosper in his days: for none of his descendants shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. Joseph was in the line of this curse. Hence, if Jesus had been Joseph's son, He could not have sat on David's throne.

But we find another genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3. This is Mary's line, back to David, through Nathan, not Jeconiah (Luke 3:31). There was no curse on this line. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David: And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there will be no end (Luke 1:30-33).

In Matthew 1:1-17 we have the royal genealogy of the son of David, through Joseph. In Luke 3:23-38 it is His strictly personal genealogy, through Mary. In Matthew it is His legal line of descent through Joseph; in Luke it is His lineal descent through Mary. In Matthew His genealogy is traced forward from Abraham; in Luke it followed backward to Adam, Each is significant!

Matthew is showing Jesus' relation to the Jew, hence he goes back no further than to Abraham, father of the Jewish nation. But in Luke is His connection with the human race; hence His genealogy is traced back to Adam, the father of the human family. In Luke, Jesus' line is traced back to Adam, and is, no doubt, His mother's line. Notice in Luke 3:23, it does not say Jesus was the son of Joseph. What are the words? As was supposed.

In Matthew 1:16, where Joseph's genealogy is given, we find that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In Luke it say he was the son of Heli. He could not be the son of two men by natural generation. But notice this carefully - the record does not state that Heli begot Joseph, so it is supposed that Joseph was the son by law (or son-in-law) of Heli. Heli is believed to have been the father of Mary. The Davadic genealogy goes through Nathan, not Solomon. This too is important. The Messiah must be David's son and heir (2 Sam. 7:12,13; Romans 1:3; Acts 2:30,31) and his seed according to the flesh. He must be a literal flesh and blood descendant. Hence Mary must be a member of David's house as well as Joseph (Luke 1:32).1

Link for quote

www.direct.ca...

and more to follow in another post.

Originally posted by justamomma
reply to post by zazzafrazz

 

Here it is:

Hebrew Bible ........ New Testament
I Chr. 3:10-16...... Matthew 1:6-11
Solomon......... Solomon
Rehoboam....... Roboam
Abia......... Abia
Asa.............. Asa
Jehoshaphat...... Josaphat
Joram............ Joram
Ahazia............ ----
Joash............... ---- ?
Amazia............ ----
Azaria........... Ozias
Jotham ..............Joatham
Ahaz.............. Achaz
Hezekia............ Ezekias
Manasseh............... Manasses
Amon............... Amon
Josia............... Josias
Jehoiakim ---- ?
Jeconia............ Jechonias


And of course the genealogy of matthew also does not line up with that in luke and both were said to be of Joseph... neither is mary's genealogy.

I already addressed Mary's genealogy in my first post, but consider this information on Matthew's genealogy of Joseph, below:

The meaning of a name was considered very important in bible days. Sometimes the bible itself informs the reader what a name means. Such renowned persons as Adam, Cain, Seth, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (and all 12 sons), Perez, Peleg and Jesus all have the meaning of their name explicitly given in the bible. Their names tell the story of why or how they were born.

Some students of the bible have wondered whether these names (with their meanings) might not be strung together in succession to tell some larger story. For if the meaning of these names do indeed tell a story then this would imply that God Himself arranged these names providentially throughout the ages. This would help prove that the genealogy of Christ is of divine origin in spite the tacit denials by such popular books as "The Da Vinci Code".

Already there have been attempts to string together the first 10 names in the bible from Adam to Noah. In general, this is what the first 10 names of the bible can read when each name is rendered one after the other in succession. "A man is appointed, a man of sorrow. The Blessed God shall come down teaching that His death shall bring the grieving rest."

But some of the meanings of these first 10 names in the genealogy of Christ remain in doubt. And regrettably, this is true also of the next 10 names from Noah to Abraham. But all is not lost. Fortunately, the next 40 names after that, as recorded in Matthew's genealogy of Abraham to Jesus, are reasonably certain. And the meaning of these latter 40 names supports the renderings of the first 20 names.

A fascinating prophecy emerges when all 60 names from Adam to Jesus are sequentially read. In the following reading, several names omitted in Matthew's genealogy are here added, and when one person has more than one name all names are used. Also, the genealogy of Cain's line (who eventually perished in the flood of Noah) are also added here. Moreover, recently another type of bible code was discovered within the first 20 names of this same genealogy of Christ. The first letter of each consecutive name from Adam to Abraham in the original Hebrew forms an acrostic prophecy. It is clear by the what this prophecy reads that it is intended to be affixed to the Meaning-of-Names Code. (The acrostic bible prophecy will be examined separately in the second part of this study.)

Link to article:

www.bible-codes.org...

AND even more proof in another post!

reply to post by sezsue


My problem with this, sezsue, is this is a man's explanation to fit things together. G.d said we would not doubt and that it would be because of HIM and NOT a man that left us without a doubt.

This still is too doubtful for me, first of all... not to mention, G.d said He would fulfill the prophecies as they were declared, not as interpreted by man. Putting Jesus into the roles of the prophecies is interpreting it still.

He made it SO clear that *HE* would give the treasures of the dark to those He was calling out from amoung the nations. When you have no need to turn to man's interpretations and you understand, that is when you will know who the Saviour is!

Look:
Isaiah 45:
2 **I** will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: **I** will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:

3 And **I** will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, ***that thou mayest know*** that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.

He did not show me the things that He did through man's interpretations. Have you ever read the Tanakh and without any explanation of man, you just KNEW what it meant and suddenly everything was so clear?

He said HE would give the interpretation so that we would KNOW that it is HIM and not a deception. Either you trust HIM or you trust man.

18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: **I am the LORD; and there is none else.** The Creator made it and HE is the LORD!

19 ***I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth**: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.

He did not speak it in secret and He really did not!! It is all there, declared exactly how He meant it to be.. and He did that so we would not be deceived. To insert Jesus into the prophecies is adding to His Word.

20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, **ye that are escaped of the nations**: ***they have no knowledge*** that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.

He is not asking ANYONE to have blind faith... there is too much that needs interpretation and most of the Tanakh has to be excluded to fit Jesus into the prophecies because the prophecies were not about him.


Watch Him declare HIMSELF as the Saviour!!!

21Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: ***who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD?*** and ***there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.***

He is IT! HE did not need someone to come and save us... to say so, makes Him weak! He is the only G.d and there is NONE beside Him... He *is* the Saviour. He declared it... He did not say Jesus is the LORD and your Saviour. That was man who said that.


Put aside the interpretations and actually read Isaiah 45-52... it is repeated over and over that He declared the Word from the beginning and that there would not be the need for interpretation so that we would KNOW that it was Him...

It really is so clear if you quit TRYING to make the security blanket of Jesus fit in. He said He closed the eyes of people so they could not see, but that to those He is calling, they would KNOW by His own declaration, not a man's.

does that make sense? I am curious what you will think if you would set the interpetations aside and read those chapters for what they say and not what you want them to say.

I think it is AWESOME that you are seeking.. but quit seeking for man's interpretations... don't even take my word for it. You don't have to since it is written right there in front of you.. as it was meant to be, so that you would know it was HIM and not man... So that you would KNOW Him and not doubt Him.

Originally posted by PuRe EnErGy
This isn't written in stone. It's a debate.

Date of Composition

Richard Valantasis writes:

Valantasis and other scholars argue that it is difficult to date Thomas because, as a collection of logia without a narrative framework, individual sayings could have been added to it gradually over time.[13]

Nevertheless, scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, approximately before or contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels .

Anyway I'm done, if I could delete all my posts I would.. this is useless.

[edit on 1/31/2009 by PuRe EnErGy]

Cooincidently, my first post in response was deleted. See if I can reconstruct the main points.

The authentic gospel of Jesus would delete the whole world from the mind of the Son of God as useless. So, while the wayward mind is at all interested in denying itself, "scholars" will dance around the issues and throw up smoke with every brain cell they have devoted to the false gOd in support of all that is anti-christ.

Here, in Valantasis, we have the "date" dance. It presupposes that the copy of Thomas in hand is the original. And so, we must date it to find out when the "original" Thomas was written. And so, if we find that it was written in 100 AD for example, it must nOt have been written by Thomas, and therefor must have been completely made up by a forgerer. This, at least, is the conclusion of at least one collegiate professor who has authored a book on the subject. I was unfortunate enough to waste an hour and a half of my time listening to one of his lectures. Like watching a magician misdirect your attention that the illusion of honest scholarship may be pulled off. It was anything but honest.

Supposing that the copy in hand is the original is stupid smoke and mirrors. Why is a manuscript buried in the first place? Reason would tell us that it was in danger of censorship. Who would be interested in censoring it? How much power did they have? What was the scope of their purge?

So, we have one copy of perhaps many copies handed down from an original. And as each copy is copied by hand, the odds of a *wise guy* inserting his own sayings is increased. The disrespect for truth was, in those days, not better than today. Confusion ruled the world then, and rules it today as evidenced in these threads. People presume to "know" when they don't know Thomas from Jack.

I am saying that it is both possible and probable that only 70% of Thomas is an authentic first hand account of his hearing of Jesus. This is far more than the 20% or less in the four pop gospels. The authentic sayings are listed in a book co-authored by Thomas future and Thomas present...as personalities threading through the incarnational cycles of time. Since the early 90's, "Thomas" from 100 years future has been appearing to "Thomas" present, sitting down in recorded conversations, appearing and disappearing out of thin air. 17 conversations over 9 years appear in a book that exposes the roots of the conspiracy that covers up anything authentic relative to the worldview Jesus learned and taught.

Believe it or not. In it, the macro picture is explained clearly for the first time by Thomas and Thaddeus, from 100 years in the future, who have finally leveraged their understanding of Jesus' message to free themselves from the "Matrix"-like world of the "ego". They explain exactly why Thomas, and Jesus for that matter, are not exactly the same as what is considered "gnostic", having just a few points in common. Jesus knew way more than the gnostics of his day or since, and leveraged his knowledge to identify with the mind that both makes the world, and also dismisses it as false. We must also do the same if we are to be free. Thomas and Thadeus from the future explain exactly how this is done, and why so many fail at achieving a goal that is inevitable for all.

Christ!

[edit on 1-2-2009 by Christ!]

reply to post by justamomma

Last bit of awesome information regarding Jesus genealogy, regarding legal right be an heir of David through Mary, and fulfilling the requirement that he had to be of David's seed:

Mary should be disqualified to transfer the rights of her lineage to her son Jesus, except for a little known exception to the rule.

In Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 we are presented with two genealogies of Jesus Christ. On the surface these different listings would appear to be a contradiction in the scriptures.

The genealogy found in Matthew's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' earthly father Joseph, while the genealogy found in Luke's gospel is the lineage of Jesus' mother Mary (see #100 - Dueling Genealogies a complete discussion of the two genealogies).

However, many of the people that teach on the genealogies fail to realize or address a major problem associated with the genealogical listing found in Luke's gospel, the lineage of Mary. Once you have established that the line is indeed Mary's you must deal with a second difficulty.

The rights of the line are not passed through the mother, only the father. Even though Mary, through her lineage, was of the Davidic bloodline, she should be excluded from being able to pass those rights of the bloodline because of being a female (Deut 21:16). So it is not enough to prove that Mary was an unblemished descendant of David, she had to be a male to transfer the rights. Therefore she would be disqualified to transfer the rights to her son Jesus, except for a little known exception to the rule.

In Numbers 26 we are introduced to Zelophehad. Zelophehad, we are told, had no sons, only daughters. In Numbers 27, following the death of Zelophehad, the daughters of Zelophehad came before Moses and argued their plight. Because their father had died with no sons, all of their rights of inheritance were to be lost and they felt this was unfair.

So Moses prayed to God and God gave Moses an exception to the rule. The Lord told Moses that the inheritance CAN flow through a female, IF they fulfill two requirements. There must be no male offspring in the family (Num 27:8) and if the female offspring should marry, they must marry within their own tribe (Num 36:6).

Now we come back to Mary. On the surface she should be unable to transfer the rights to her Son. But when you research you find that Mary had NO brothers, AND Mary did indeed marry within her own tribe to Joseph.

What an awesome God we serve that set in order the requirements to allow the virgin birth to take place 1,400 years in advance!

Link to article:

www.direct.ca...

By the way, I only excerpted from the articles I gave links to, and all the articles go into more information that is really interesting.

I hope this information helped you in your quest for knowledge about the truth. I know your casting doubt on it actually made my own faith in Jesus even stronger.

You know, back in October 2007, I sincerely prayed to God to answer a question I had, and to please answer in a way that I, as a human, would be able to understand.

God did answer my prayer, UNMISTAKEABLY, and keeps guiding me to find even more information that he wants me to be able to pass along, because, as the Bible says, God is not willing that even one be lost, He wants us all to be saved, and if you pray with a sincere heart God will answer.

reply to post by sezsue


But if it needs man's interpretation, than it is not of G.d. It is that simple. I believe the Word was the prophet Moses spoke of.. but that is as far as it goes! That is the ONLY prophecy that fits Jesus.. and it wasn't even about the man "Jesus".. it was about the Word spoken.

G.d did not give prophecies that were like Nostrodamus and others.. where it was vague and anything could fit.. G.d was clear.. quit interpreting and actually read the Word that is there.

reply to post by justamomma

First, all I can say is, WOW!!! after all the info I gave you, THAT"S what you have to say! I think your name must really be *Thomas*.

Second, um......I guess you don't know that Isaiah 45 is the Lord talking to Cyrus? And what does that have to do with anything?

But what I really wanted to say is, you didn't answer my original 2 questions, what was going on in your life that made you question and reject Jesus Christ? And are you taking instruction to convert to Judaism? I'm just curious.

The Bible is quite useful. I used it as a reference to build all kinds of fun tools. And those tools are stronger than the things any other book could teach.

Think of it like this...Physics books taught about nuclear weapons and those things are a total waste of resources. The Bible can be used as an instruction manual for manufacturing sub-atomic bombs; they are far more powerful and don't give off radiation.

I am not even a Christian, but that book is full of tasty info.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by huckfinn]

Originally posted by sezsue
You know, back in October 2007, I sincerely prayed to God to answer a question I had, and to please answer in a way that I, as a human, would be able to understand.

God did answer my prayer, UNMISTAKEABLY, and keeps guiding me to find even more information that he wants me to be able to pass along,...

If you pray to the gOd of humans, you will get an answer that reinforces your belief in your human persona.

If you pray to the GoD of the Son of God, you will get an answer that reinforces your disbelief in your humanhood, and reinforces your belief in your GoDhood.

Christ!

Originally posted by sezsue
reply to post by Christ!

I'm sorry but the Bible, both Old and New Testaments tell us Not to worship anything but God. We worship and give praise He who created everything, NOT the things he created, or at least that's what we should be doing.

In the King James Old Testament, in the Ten commandants, it says,

"3Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

Do you think everything your eyes see is anything the true GoD made?
Then you worship what blasphemes the true GoD with a rediculous mockery of "creation".

Note well: What you think is "everything" is a "graven image"...everything in the heavens above, everything in the earth beneath, and everything under the water.

Even your own legends state, "Let us make man in our image".

Man is a graven image, imagined of imagination.

What is imagined is a "god" that stands before the true GoD, blinding you to true creation and true reality.

What stands as "god" before the true GoD is an idol.
All that is imagined is an idol.

The idol can only be appreciated as a mistake.
It is a finely crafted mistake.

But if you appreciate it or its effects as "creator" and "creation", you bow before an idol, and set up another "god" that is not the true GoD.

You are merely rationalizing your motivations.
You are motivated by what the idol offers.
It offers you something you think you want.
Till now you have wanted it.
You are not even fully aware that you are motivated by what the idol offers you.
Your motivation determines what you will "hear" from "god".
The idol *speaks* as you *listen* to it.

The true GoD does not condemn you.
You have condemned yourself with this idol.
Forgive yourself then, that you may be set free.
The idol is not the truth, and can be dismissed from your mind when it is no longer desired above the true GoD.
It does not change your status as Christ, the true Creation of the true God.

Christ!

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Christ!]

If other religious books are like the Bible, which I have studied, they should be considered mostly fiction containing some wise instruction. For modern times, they are way too long to be much use. There is also much harmful content that is bad for society today.