It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could the Bible be Misinterpreted?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
As of recently, everytime I read the bible I get this nagging feeling that it's not talking of things in a physical sense. It's describing a spiritual battle, where it is explained as a physical representation.

When the bible says great earthquakes I wonder if it isn't referring to a massive shift in the foundation of evils goals.

When the bible says great signs in the heavens I wonder if it isn't referring to an enlightenment of human consciousness.

When the bible says you shall not do X, Y, or Z it isn't just a physical representation of in order to do those things you have no love for your neighbor. Thus you should always have love in your heart and in your intentions.

When the bible says tribulations I wonder if it isn't referring to which path you will follow...the path of love and unity of all, or the path of selfishness.

When the bible says hell and damnation will be brought against the wicked. I wonder if it isn't referring to everything in the physical that they have placed their faith will be brought down before them as the system changes.

When the bible says everyone will receive a mark (whether good or evil) I wonder if it isn't saying that there will be those with an agenda to push and those with the betterment of all in mind when they speak.

When the bible says there is a mark of the beast I wonder if it isn't the current system of the status quo.

When the bible says there is an anti-christ I wonder if it is a good thing, as the anti-christ will command the change in the direction of the whole betterment, one geared to deceive the current holders of power and wreck havoc on their control system.

When the bible says that the elect will be hated throughout the tribulations, I wonder if it doesn't mean that anyone who wants to see the breakdown of the current system so that a better system can be put into place, will be persecuted. I wonder if those that want truth aren't the elect.




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
1 Cor. 15: 30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
Why did Paul say that? Because the kingdom of God is in opposition of the World Empire. Man says, "I will establish a dynasty that will reign forever." God says, "I will establish a kingdom that will last forever."
History shows us that men are not able to back up their boasts but God is faithful in fulfilling His promises.
Paul, by openly proclaiming God's fulfillment and the things yet to come about, put himself in danger from the powers that be, because the truth would be damaging to their pride.
Rome is long gone and Paul's words are alive in the hearts of believers. Would people listening to Paul preaching been taking the safe position, by going along with the powers that be? We can see now, that rejecting Paul would have been useless and Rome did not save anyone. Those who may have believed, and later suffered for that belief, have the hope of resurrection.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Except that Paul wrote a book called "Romans", in which he appeals to the worldly authority and empire, and says things such as:



1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:


In which he appeals that all earthly and the world empire IS a function of god, and thus we are too submit to it.

Paul appeals to creating governments and putting man into positions of authority. And if you read the OT, even though God gives them a king in David, God says - they ask for this because they reject ME, because they reject God they want this worldly authority.

And of course, when the church gains these powers, they do not really act differently. And IMO, the church gaining those powers fulfilled many of prophecies, and not the good ones. Jesus rejected those powers for a reason. Separation of church and state is implied many times in the OT and the NT. 2 masters. I choose to serve the church, and I do not mean a physical church, but a spiritual church within based on understanding. Choose your master. Jesus or Paul, Church or State and so on.






[edit on 6-5-2009 by badmedia]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Wasn't Satan released on the world for 2000 years? Is his time up?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


What you are talking about is seeing an understanding under the literal, and that IMO is right on the money. What you are doing is seeing the equation behind the expression. Seeing that while 1+1=2 is being used to express math, there is an understanding beneath the literal 1's and 2's. And then when you gain that understanding, you are able to replace the 1's and 2's with more than just the single expression to see many truths. You are starting to "get it".

I think you are closer than you think on most of those things, some I'm not really in agreement with though but mostly in how I would say it.

For example the elect. It also says - even the elect will be deceived. I think the majority of them have good intentions and want to do good things, and they honestly believe what they are doing is the right thing. But they are deceived, and don't really understand. They have to spend their time trying to say the right things that people will perceive right, rather than what is right/wrong etc. And then there is greed and such, which all humans have and so while it can be pointed out, who among us can really judge them for it. So I agree that they do try to do good things, but I am not so much in agreement that what they do are actually good things(patriot act, wars, etc).

Also, as for the anti-christ. If most people are already deceived, then the anti-christ will be accepted as christ, and christ will be deemed the anti-christ by those people. And if you accept on authority(literal), you won't be able to tell the difference. Only with understanding would you be able to tell. Which just so happens to be what the father gives.

But I do see the things in revelation and all the destruction and death it talks of as being only towards the systems and things of that nature being destroyed, outside the pain and suffering the systems themselves do before hand. I don't really worry about the end times at all.

Because what does the very word revelation mean? And also Apocalypse? They are deemed by society and associated with being bad things/times. Why? Because of which side society is on. Revelation just means - things will be reveled. And apocalypse is a revelation. They are deemed as destructive times only by those who are having their world and way destroyed. And that is going to happen as the people wake up, as the truth starts to be revealed to them. They will start to see through the lies, they will start to see the understanding. They will understand what Jesus and others like him talk about for themselves. And when that happens, then the people aren't going to put up with the lies and such anymore. Once the truth is seen, the lie is hopeless.

So as the truth is revealed, then "Jesus"(aka the truth, the light, the way) is coming to those people. And they will then see the truth, and then they will follow the truth. Thus why those who are poor in spirit are blessed. Because they haven't had the chance to reject the truth, as they had never known it. Only the wicked - those who know the truth and work against it, need worry.

When you actually see and know the truth, you can see through the lie easy.

I think you are heading towards understanding, and that is the right direction IMO.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 

Except that Paul wrote a book called "Romans", in which he appeals to the worldly authority and empire,
I think he meant that there needs to be some sort of civil government and it is not our duty to try to get rid of that. My point is that we do not expect any more than that out of the government. We are not to think that we can make the changes that we would like, by using the force that the government legitimately has for prosecuting common criminals, to bring about some utopia. That is the sort of thing going on now. You have politicians who want to completely overstep the bounds of their enumerated authority to set up a new world order of international socialism, whether we like it or not.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


He says that all authority is of god. Where Jesus says render unto Caeser what is Caesars. This is the same authority that murders Jesus. This is a sick view of the life of Jesus, where his sacrifice becomes the sacrifice of truth, so that the lie of this world can live.

Here's a page that says if you are police officer, then you are working for god. And it quotes these verses.

www.pofci.org...

So, I guess those SS officers with the Nazi's were working for god? I guess when they preached these verses to the German people, they were doing god's work?

It's a perversion of things plain and simple. Jesus states very clearly that this is not his Kingdom. God in the OT states very clearly that those who choose to have kings and governments reject him.

Jesus says not to make authority figures of ourselves, not to be called titles and such that make us appear over other men. But this is not what Paul says. Paul instead creates authorities in the name of Jesus, and claims that these things are of god.

Paul delivers the sheep to the slaughter. While the majority rejected Jesus, the majority accepted Paul, and he did so through political appeal to the authorities in a book named towards the very brutal authorities of the time.

It is changed from being about understanding and gaining knowledge, questioning authority, into a religion of control, dogma and brainwashing. Those who didn't go along were killed. And of course, Paul did these things in the generation of the times, as Jesus says will happen. Each of them is prophecy fulfilled.



Matthew 7

28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine:

29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.


Or



Romans 13

1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.


Sorry, but Jesus is right and Paul is a false shepherd.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Right...if this is GOD's kingdom then what about Satan? I thought Satan was in control until GOD returns? IMO the religious text has been altered and things have been added so that we accept certain things without question. Well I'm questioning now. Only Jesus's spoken word makes any sense. And to which I don't think he meant anything he said in the physical form, he meant it in a spiritual sense.

Thanks for all your discussion on this topic. I almost wish there was a bible that related the words of Jesus into spiritual meaning.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
As of recently, everytime I read the bible I get this nagging feeling that it's not talking of things in a physical sense. It's describing a spiritual battle, where it is explained as a physical representation.


Sort of a side note that came to mind when I read this first paragraph. A gentleman named Rick Joyner wrote three books, The Final Quest, The Call, and The Torch and the Sword, which were a series of visions and dreams of the whole end times thing as well as the state of the world today from a spiritual perspective. Even if you don't believe in prophecy existing in the church today, the books do an amazing job of giving you a picture of the spiritual battle taking place right now in a way I'd never noticed before.

As to the literal vs. symbolic, let me first say the Bible is an amazing book, and I think you're right, but also wrong. Everything in scripture holds vast meaning, as, I'm sure if you've read multiple commentaries, you've already discovered. One of the most well known examples of that was all of the prophecy predicting David's reign of Israel, but more so Christ's reign over Heaven. The scripture seemed to be pointing to one thing, and in part was fulfilled by that one thing, but so much more so by the second (Christ.)

I think you may be discovering that same principle. All in all, the spiritual side of things is vastly more important than what's going to happen here on earth tomorrow. It's like comparing 80 to infinity -- there is no comparison. Personally, I believe the Bible speaks literally, and that these things that it says will come to pass will, in fact, come to pass. However, I think you're right, in saying that every element has spiritual ramifications that are far more important than if an earthquake will hit California.

Take, for example, Revelation 2 and 3, which is where I'm currently studying. The messages to the churches directly applied to the churches at the time, and in each case, came to pass. The lamp stand of the church of Ephesus, for example, was taken away a long time ago. However, does that mean there's nothing but a history lesson to be learned by us today? Certainly not! That the church became so fixated on works they forgot their first love, Christ, is something so terribly common in both churches today as well as individuals today. Yes, there was a church in Turkey that no longer exists, probably because they continued to do works without taking the time to abide in Christ. Yet, for you an I, it expresses both a spiritual condition as well as a demonic tactic to change our hearts from seeking God to seeking to do good works for our fellow man. Yes, if we do good works, it benefits our fellow man, but if we seek Christ first, the natural outflow would be to do those good works anyway, and far more effectively.

So yes, I agree that the spiritual ramifications exist in scripture and hold far more significance, but that doesn't mean the physical is no longer applicable. God's smart, and He can make both true at the same time!

EDIT TO ADD:

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
IMO the religious text has been altered


If that is a concern, I highly recommend you read The Case For Christ, or, if you're a bit more academic in nature, read The Evidence That Demands A Verdict, volumes 1 and 2. The evidence greatly supports, today far more than even 100 years ago, the accuracy of scripture to the original writings. The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrated that the Old Teastament hasn't changed in thousands of years, and many scrolls from 2,000 years ago that are still being discovered today take away most (all, in my case) doubt that scripture has significantly changed.

Also, by significantly I mean in any way that changes the message. When you translate from one language to another, such as in the case of the New Testament from Greek to English, you can lose some meaning since some words don't translate well. If that is a concern, though, I would suggest either learning Greek or going to the website Studylight.org which provides the original Greek translations as well as Strong's lexicon so you can get the full definition of the Greek words being used.

Today, more than ever, the tools are there for us to read the scripture as it was originally written. It just takes some time and work to do so.

[edit on 5/9/09/09 by junglejake]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
In response to the question posed in the thread title, 'Could the Bible be Misinterpreted/', I think yes, it could, it has and it can.

As has already been said by JJ, translation can cause loss of some meaning. I understand that the NT was originally written in Greek. But I cannot concur that this is the original language of the Bible. The OT was not written in Greek, the OT is based on the Holy Books of the Jewish people and written in Hebrew. (Jesus spoke Aramaic. Does anyone know if there are any original scriptual works about the life of Jesus written in his tongue?)

The NT was writen in Greek because Greek was the most accessible language of the day. Each language, ancient and modern, reflects the cultural mores and values of the age and it is inconceivable that this does not apply to both the original writings and to later translations. So, interpretation is also subject to historical context.

The Bible is a sort of Life Manual for all aspects of human life, material and spiritual. The Bible relates to our duality, to our experiential conflict between mind/spirit and matter, to our day to day needs and to our life's paths.

There are some verses in the Bible that advise people on very mundane and pragmatic matters. In the day, the general population, the masses, were largely uneducated, (education was only for the rich until very recently) and the spiritual leader was also the teacher.

People went to the leader/teacher for advice on all matters and I'd hazard a guess that most spiritual leaders throughout history are asked to advise on many more 'human' matters than spiritual.

So yes, the Bible has been misinterpreted, sometimes by individuals, sometimes by whole congregations, has lost some meaning in translation, and is also easily misunderstood.

For instance, the ban on eating pork was not for spiritual reasons. It was because of swine flu that existed even then, before the discovery of penicilin. Yet today, the accepted wisdom does not include what was, in essense, the health care advice of the day.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by teapot
 


You raise some good points. First, I wanted to mention that the studylight.org website I mentioned above also includes Hebrew for the Old Testament, as well as an online copy of the Septuagint, which is a translation of the Old Testament into Greek done a couple of hundred years before Christ. So far as I know, with the exception of the book of the prophet Daniel, yes, the OT was all originally in Hebrew.

As you pointed out, the NT was written in Greek because Greek was the most common and universal language of the day. Much like English is today, where, in the case of most bilingual people, one of the languages they speak is English. At the time it was written, the events depicted in the beginning of the book of Acts had already taken place, and Christians were located all over the Mediterranean. It made sense, therefore, to put it all in a language the masses could understand.

To my knowledge, there are no authentic writings of Christ written in Aramaic, and I don't even know if any unauthentic writings were done so. I understand your point, though -- some of Jesus' meaning could have been lost due to the translation from Aramaic to Greek.

However, there is some cultural aspects that lead me to believe this is not the case. Today and for the last hundred and fifty years or so, our concept of storytelling and relating events is far more rigid than it was then. When events were related to people 2,000 years ago, the idea and concepts that took place were related, though exact recounting of the words spoken was not as highly esteemed as it is today. This can be seen even in the three synaptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, as they quote Jesus -- at times the quotes or depictions of events vary slightly. This was normal based on the intention of the author.

Now if you're like I was when I first learned that, warning bells are probably going off as to the authenticity of scripture. However, just like we have editors and tape recorders today, there were checks and balances then, too. When the Gospel was originally told, there were often those in the crowd who were there and experienced the events, too. It would not be uncommon in the event of something being falsely depicted for someone to call the speaker on the falsehood. Someone saying something akin to, "Hey, wait a sec, I was there and Jesus didn't do that!"

There is also, in the case of scripture, the amazing continuity. You'll find online and in many places lists of contradictions in scripture. When I first started studying the Word, these were a prime concern for me -- if you look through my posting history, a lot of my early posts here included statements along the lines of, "if I'm wrong about the accuracy of scripture, then I want to know because I don't want to waste my time with a lie." Those statements disappeared as I looked into contradiction after contradiction. You see, if you take the Word as a whole, there is no contradiction. They vanish in a way that no group of over 40 humans over the course of 4,000 years could ever have done. The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.

I do have to disagree on the reasons for the ban on pork, though. Yes, there was medicinal value in that as well as some other rules for eating Kosher. However, there was also an overriding theme throughout the establishing of the people of Israel of God making a people separate from the rest of the world. This can still be seen in Jews today. God separated and made holy a people not because of who they were, but because of who He was and because of His plan for all of humanity. That the pork and many other rules were of a health benefit just fits so extraordinarily well with God's character of mixing the spiritual with the practical.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
reply to post by teapot
 


Thank you. I've really enjoyed reading this post.



As you pointed out, the NT was written in Greek because Greek was the most common and universal language of the day. Much like English is today, where, in the case of most bilingual people, one of the languages they speak is English. At the time it was written, the events depicted in the beginning of the book of Acts had already taken place, and Christians were located all over the Mediterranean. It made sense, therefore, to put it all in a language the masses could understand.


So translation into Greek also assisted the Evangelicals of the day.


To my knowledge, there are no authentic writings of Christ written in Aramaic, and I don't even know if any unauthentic writings were done so. I understand your point, though -- some of Jesus' meaning could have been lost due to the translation from Aramaic to Greek.


Or Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek?

Also, the esoteric element of written language and communication, the poetry. I've found the Bible to be poetic in places, even when relating dark events. And of course, the romantic writings, the Song of Soloman, for instance. Some of the prose is beautiful.

I have never heard Aramaic spoken. This thread and your post has prompted me to seek out a recording! I won't (and don't want to) understand the actual words! I want to hear the cadence, lilt and inflection, the language's tone, it's signature maybe!


However, there is some cultural aspects that lead me to believe this is not the case. Today and for the last hundred and fifty years or so, our concept of storytelling and relating events is far more rigid than it was then. When events were related to people 2,000 years ago, the idea and concepts that took place were related, though exact recounting of the words spoken was not as highly esteemed as it is today.


What of oral tradition? Before the advent of education to the masses, all histories were passed down through the oral tradition. I have assumed that this applies to the middle east as elsewhere on Earth. I think that this ancient tradition greatly assisted the original writers to recall and accurately record events.



Now if you're like I was when I first learned that, warning bells are probably going off as to the authenticity of scripture.


No. I've never doubted the authenticity of scripture. Just the relevance of some verses to me, my life and my experience of the 20th/21st century and the motivations of the decision makers who excluded certain scriptural writings from what is now commonly accepted as the Bible.



The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.


This beautifully sums up the relationship between the two! But what of the Revelation?


I do have to disagree on the reasons for the ban on pork, though. Yes, there was medicinal value in that as well as some other rules for eating Kosher. However, there was also an overriding theme throughout the establishing of the people of Israel of God making a people separate from the rest of the world. This can still be seen in Jews today. God separated and made holy a people not because of who they were, but because of who He was and because of His plan for all of humanity. That the pork and many other rules were of a health benefit just fits so extraordinarily well with God's character of mixing the spiritual with the practical.


Yes! That duality thing again! The human experience.

For me, I spent rather a lot of time with the Bible. Both reading it, and praying about what I had read and meditating, questing, for understanding. Then after a while, everything changed. I've not read the Bible properly for years but I have a feeling that God will forgive me!



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I plan on responding to more, but wanted to let you know that The Passion Of The Christ is actually all in Aramaic. It's a dead language (I believe), and, like Latin, pronunciation must therefore be guessed at, but one of the big points of the movie is that it was in an attempt at the language. I'd start there



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Yes.

God's words are spirit and truth. Determine these two words, by which reality hang, and you have answered your own question.

Here is an example.

A person is sick. Which helps them more, praying for them or physically caring for them? One is unknown having no outcome, but is rather a glorified wish and the other will actually produce a state that eases the sick persons illness with care. One is spirit and one is truth. One is Faith and the other works. Praying on the sick makes you feel good, caring for the sick makes them and you feel good.

As our creator is not a creator of confusion, that is, one who leaves his creation in confusion, he creates darkness and forms light, he creates Evil and arranges right, that is to set them in order which is the meaning of Cosmos (Not celestial, space etc. or any other imaginary meaning), but simply "to set in order".

What is true? Have you ever seen a man raised from the dead? Have you seen a man healed by a touch, or receive eyesight from touch? Have you seen a man walk on water, or turn water into wine or split one fish and have it keep on giving? These are all spirit, but unless you apply truth with them also, they are deceptions of the Image so many are falling for.

Another thing to understand is that the bible you read in English (latin) has two other languages that witness it's understanding and with out reading those you will be lost. The greek gives transference of tense that are lost in latin and the most hebrew words are much more complex in understanding then the translators could give meaning to. Just like two or more witnesses are needed to establish a fact, it is no different with understanding the bible and what is actually being said. With out having, at the very least, a minimal understanding of these other two languages the real meanings of the bible are lost to the latin only speaking world.

Another big clue. "In my name". This is said so many times in the word and no one questions why. EVERY name in the bible gives fulfillment to the surrounding text. Even if you never learn these other languages, if you do anything learn what the names mean. They are the key to understanding the passage.

God favors no individual, but what he does favor are those who DO his will. You will find his will in the name as the names are not identifiers, but rather actions.

Prime Example of this: Jesus. Jesus means "Self existent salvation". Anyone doing "in his name" will be saved. Self existent salvation is the same as it has been since the beginning of the world...be fruitful and multiply. In other words....have children. The kingdom belongs to such. If you wait around for magic, you are one of the fooled.

Peace



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Prime Example of this: Jesus. Jesus means "Self existent salvation". Anyone doing "in his name" will be saved. Self existent salvation is the same as it has been since the beginning of the world...be fruitful and multiply. In other words....have children. The kingdom belongs to such. If you wait around for magic, you are one of the fooled.

Peace


Where did you hear that the meaning of Jesus's name is self existent salvation? His real name was Yeshua, which simply means salvation, and is the concatenated form of the Hebrew word Yahoshua, which means "Lord who is Salvation".

The names can give light to a situation, but it's not a hard and fast rule. Also, in the context by which Christ says, "when you pray these things in My name" He is talking about His being at the right hand of God petitioning Him on our behalf when the disciples questioned what He meant when He said soon they would not see Him but then later still they would see Him again.

Here's a link to John 16:16-33 where Jesus talks about praying in His name in context.

Also, what of the guys who were casting out demons in Jesus's and Paul's names to which they replied, "Jesus we know and Paul we know, but who are you?" See scripture reference here, Acts 19

A pastor gives a pretty good explanation as to what it Biblically means to pray in Jesus's name here. I'll quote part below:


All Christians pray in Jesus's name, and only in Jesus's name, in that we approach God under the authority of Jesus and, if you will, by his permission and because of his effort on our behalf. We come before God's throne of grace, not in our own merit, but in the merit of Jesus. I'm reminded of a time when I visited the U.S. Capitol in Washington as a guest of Congressman John Campbell. With him as my guide, I walked freely around the Capitol, entering many areas that were reserved only for members of Congress and their guests. I was welcome in that place, not because of who I was or because of anything I had done, but because I was there "in the name" of Congressman Campbell. So it is when we come before God in the name of Jesus.


Finally, the good news, as I mentioned above, is that the Word is available and understandable to everyone who seeks it. Especially now. Yes, the Greek and Hebrew can be barriers, but in this time of history, they're curbs on the side of the road, not razor wire fences. Studylight.org provides original Greek and Hebrew copies of the Bible online with links to each word in those languages' lexicons. So even if you don't know Greek or Hebrew, you can (with a little effort) read in the original Greek or Hebrew.

To say the Bible can't be understood by regular folks is just like the Pharisees did in Christ's time, as well as the church did in the middle ages by insisting it stay in a dead language (Latin). Saying such is attempting to take away the accessibility to the Word God has granted us and instead says you need a mediator between you and Jesus to understand what He really wants and means. If that were the case, wouldn't Christ have chosen educated folks like Paul to be his disciples instead of some uneducated fishermen and tax collectors?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ExPostFacto
 


Yes it can and has been in the past. The key to understanding the bible is what do you take as literal and what is symbolic.

I will give you 2 easier example's.
1)When Jesus told his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood, this was not literal. He was not encouraging cannibalism. On the last passover he explained it, but that was much later.

2)When God said a woman and a man would become one flesh once married, it didn't mean you become physically joined like a Siamese twin. Rather that a married couple should be united in purpose and unity in what they are doing.

Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel these are all books with heavy symbolism, if you take some things literally you will end up hopelessly lost in confusion.

This scripture really explains it and illustrates it well.
Revelation Chapter 17 is one example in the middle of the chapter it says in verse 9a This calls for a mind [to consider that is packed] with wisdom and intelligence [it is something for a particular mode of thinking and judging of thoughts, feelings, and purposes].

If you read all of Chapter 17 it is packed with symbolism, for example who are the following?

"The Great Harlot"
"Scarlet-colored wild beast"
"Babylon the Great"
"Wild Beast"
"Eighth King"
"Seven Kings"

And that's just one chapter

[edit on 13-5-2009 by Blue_Jay33]



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by junglejake
 


I don't exactly agree with what you say about praying in the name of Jesus, but I like your response. It's something that actually makes sense and has reason behind it.

But, something seems out of place in your example with me. You mention that he was there in the name of the congressmen, but that is a tradition of man. The man is there in the name of the congressmen because the man is unknown by the rest of the people. Is this to say that God doesn't know the person unless they are on the grounds in the name of Jesus?

Also, I agreed with you about the name itself not being important, I was actually going to respond as you did to that post, but got side tracked. But doesn't that somewhat nullify the congressmen part? I understand it can be "implied" and such, and would myself even give it a free pass under that circumstance. But it is just again another thing that seems slightly out of place.

When I read where Jesus says "in his name", I see Jesus as being symbolic of "Truth, the way and the light". So if you are doing and asking things in the name of these things, then that is answered/given. If you are seeking out the truth about things, then you are seeking Jesus. When you find the truth, then you are accepting it. And of course, if you have accepted and believed, then you will follow the way and light.

Jesus says if you ask anything in his name he will do it etc. If you ask for brother to be killed in Jesus name will that be done? I would have to say no. Would that make Jesus a liar? Not if we understand that it in his name relates to doing one of the 3 things I mentioned. And that is not the way, thus it is not in his name and is not done.

So the way I see it, if you ask in the name of truth, the way and the light, then it will be done. That is what Jesus symbolizes, and that is what is in his name.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by badmedia]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


There is only one God, therefore if people want to talk to God via the name of Jesus Christ then thats ok. I think I agree with you. I can talk to God Directly because as a Child of God, my father/mother I can talk to my creator without a mediator, I thought thats another reason Jesus came to earth, to educate us in the matter of cutting out the middle man and going direct to the source?



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Prime Example of this: Jesus. Jesus means "Self existent salvation". Anyone doing "in his name" will be saved. Self existent salvation is the same as it has been since the beginning of the world...be fruitful and multiply. In other words....have children. The kingdom belongs to such. If you wait around for magic, you are one of the fooled.

Peace


Where did you hear that the meaning of Jesus's name is self existent salvation? His real name was Yeshua, which simply means salvation, and is the concatenated form of the Hebrew word Yahoshua, which means "Lord who is Salvation".

The names can give light to a situation, but it's not a hard and fast rule. Also, in the context by which Christ says, "when you pray these things in My name" He is talking about His being at the right hand of God petitioning Him on our behalf when the disciples questioned what He meant when He said soon they would not see Him but then later still they would see Him again.

Here's a link to John 16:16-33 where Jesus talks about praying in His name in context.

Also, what of the guys who were casting out demons in Jesus's and Paul's names to which they replied, "Jesus we know and Paul we know, but who are you?" See scripture reference here, Acts 19

A pastor gives a pretty good explanation as to what it Biblically means to pray in Jesus's name here. I'll quote part below:


All Christians pray in Jesus's name, and only in Jesus's name, in that we approach God under the authority of Jesus and, if you will, by his permission and because of his effort on our behalf. We come before God's throne of grace, not in our own merit, but in the merit of Jesus. I'm reminded of a time when I visited the U.S. Capitol in Washington as a guest of Congressman John Campbell. With him as my guide, I walked freely around the Capitol, entering many areas that were reserved only for members of Congress and their guests. I was welcome in that place, not because of who I was or because of anything I had done, but because I was there "in the name" of Congressman Campbell. So it is when we come before God in the name of Jesus.


Finally, the good news, as I mentioned above, is that the Word is available and understandable to everyone who seeks it. Especially now. Yes, the Greek and Hebrew can be barriers, but in this time of history, they're curbs on the side of the road, not razor wire fences. Studylight.org provides original Greek and Hebrew copies of the Bible online with links to each word in those languages' lexicons. So even if you don't know Greek or Hebrew, you can (with a little effort) read in the original Greek or Hebrew.

To say the Bible can't be understood by regular folks is just like the Pharisees did in Christ's time, as well as the church did in the middle ages by insisting it stay in a dead language (Latin). Saying such is attempting to take away the accessibility to the Word God has granted us and instead says you need a mediator between you and Jesus to understand what He really wants and means. If that were the case, wouldn't Christ have chosen educated folks like Paul to be his disciples instead of some uneducated fishermen and tax collectors?


Yes, yeshua which is a cognitive of Yahweh and Shua. Yahweh is "self existent" or "I am" or "Cause to become". Shua is Salvation, hence "self existent salvation".

"Behold, I AM WITH YOU, even until the end of the age."

Who makes the choice of salvation? You or the image of the beast?

"Who told you you were naked, have you eaten from the tree I have instructed you not to?"

Jesus brings the truth. The truth is, they were naked. God was holding back the truth for their sakes.

Peace

[edit on 14-5-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]

[edit on 15-5-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

To say the Bible can't be understood by regular folks is just like the Pharisees did in Christ's time, as well as the church did in the middle ages by insisting it stay in a dead language (Latin). Saying such is attempting to take away the accessibility to the Word God has granted us and instead says you need a mediator between you and Jesus to understand what He really wants and means. If that were the case, wouldn't Christ have chosen educated folks like Paul to be his disciples instead of some uneducated fishermen and tax collectors?


Jake, He comes to those who do not know him. A child has a better understanding of Christ then the greatest teacher alive.

Remember he did not come to bring peace, but the sword. He choose the weak of the world to make the strong look foolish. Wisdom is justified by her children.

Peace



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join