My first issues with the Bible.

reply to post by ChaosComplex

On here..you are going to get for the Bible or against the Bible, indifferent to bible, or sorta for it. The best thing to do is to start research on the history and politics of those times and find out why the people of the bible believed the way they did. You would be surprised what you find out. If you are interested in finding a faith to go with then ..there are 30,000 Christian structured faiths in the world today. That should keep you busy for awhile.

reply to post by Jim Scott


Why would you call the Gospel of Thomas "heretical"?

What evidence can you present that proves that it was created to destroy the church?

The only way that it differs from the other 4 "official" Gospels is that it is not an account of the life of Jesus, but it merely discusses his teachings.

Btw...
Assumptions are very bad to make, unless it is solely concerning yourself.

Paul – Another Assault on What Christians Believe Posted by lamarzulli on March 21, 2011 Commentary & Analysis by L. A. Marzulli When movies like Paul come out, I have to see them, it’s part of what I do. Here’s the deal though, please don’t waste your money on the film as it is about as low brow as you can get. It is filled with profanity and afterwards my wife and I felt like we needed a shower! Who writes this junk anyway? Paul is an alien that has escaped from an Area 51 like compound. He swears and curses, smokes cigarettes, rolls a joint with his four-fingered hands and inhales deeply. He is an ardent evolutionists who expounds that there is no god, no right or wrong, no good or evil, only evolution. In short the movie is geared toward the MTV Jackass crowd, it’s over the top stupid. So why am I bothering with it at all … glad you asked. The movie attacks the Christian faith and does so with an unrestrained gusto. There is a female character in the movie that has been raised by her widowed, bible thumping, shotgun totting, overall wearing, over-protective, Christian, father, who orders the woman around with a series of grunt-like commands. When the woman meets Paul, by accident, she faints dead away. Then, when she awakens she says, You’re a demon! She drops to her knees and starts singing Amazing Grace. Hows that for spiritual warfare? Paul goes over to her and lays his hands on the hysterical womans head – sort of like a Vulcan mind melt that was popularized in the Star Trek series – and she comes out of it with a new world view. She is now free from the rules and restraints of her repressive Christian religion and so begins to curse like a sailor. The next thing she does is grab the crotch of a man and starts talking about sex. Because she has been enlightened by Paul, she now realizes that there is no god, no good or evil, no right or wrong, so anything goes! She is free at last…. to have unrestrained sex, and use as many F-bombs as she can in a single sentence. I wonder what would have happened if the idiots who made this film used a Jewish woman or perhaps a Moslem? They didn’t and you know why, because it’s cool and hip to denigrate Christians and the audience laughed in all the right places. In closing todays’ post: Paul is another assault on what Christians believe. It also indoctrinate us into the alien gospel, that ET is wiser more evolved than we are. What the movie promulgates is the theory evolution. All of what we see around us just happened, there is no God, no creator. In that respect, Paul has an ax to grind and does so by showing Christians as backward, illiterate, buffoons who are steeped in a superstitious religion that is nothing more than fantasy. I was appalled at what I saw, and I reminded of this warning: Because they did not believe the truth, God sends them strong delusion that they should believe the lie… Woe to them who call good evil and evil good.

lamarzulli.wordpress.com...

This is the goal of Hollywood and of some of what is called the new age movement, you could say this how Satan is deceiving the world into buying into the alien deception.

reply to post by BlueShift


I understand. That is the problem with the Pope, he is an autocratic human dictator of the Church of Rome. We all know that humans aren't infallible which is why the Orthodox Bishops solve issues with councils and decide doctrine by consensus. Whereas the Pope feels it is his prerogative to establish his opinions on theology into dogma and doctrine. In fact that is the history of Western Christianity in a nut shell. The Pope decided he held sovereignty over the whole Church because he was Bishop of Rome and used the theologic opinion of Augustine to support his position. This lead to a deterioration in understanding of theology because the Roman Church was locked into juridical Augustinian thinking because other Church fathers had different opinions. So by taking Augustine's opinions as dogma they had to accept the idea of Original Sin as the inherited guilt from Adam and Eve, the seven deadly sins, hell as a torture room, possibility of separation from God, and the Crucifixion as a proptitiation as fact instead of opinion. The Orthodox on the other hand are much more fluid in opinion, preferring to look at concepts foreign to human understanding as "mysteries". For instance, all Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Ya'hshuah the Messiah, Son of the Living God, but Roman Catholics have to explain this with their doctrine of Transubstantiation (theological opinion) whereas the Orthodox just accept it as is. Many opinions had to be established as doctrine once the Roman Catholics trapped themselves in an Augustinain thought box. For instance: how could Mary become the Mother of God while being a human guilty of the sin of Eve? The Roman Catholics are forced by this to enforce the Immaculate Conception doctrine which states that Mary was Immaculately Conceived without Original Sin. The Orthodox never trapped themselves in this one opinion so we simply see Mary as a fulfillment of the Law and promise of God, by whom the disobedience of Eve was undone by obedience and closeness to God. So, Mary was the final result of Jewish obedience to the law that made them righteous enough to bear the Messiah and Son of God. No need to make claims that Mary was free from inherited guilt because we never believed that in the first place.

reply to post by Josephus23


I admit I've only read the first and last couple of pages of this thread. I'll go back and check out your links. Thank, man!

Originally posted by AkragonAlright but this war in heaven already happened, which was why satan was cast down to earth correct?

What im asking you is do you believe...an angel would disobey his creator? Do they have free will?

Yes, didn't you watch the movie Legion?? (kidding. or am I?)

Originally posted by ChaosComplex
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

How did the various versions of the Bible come about (King James Version, NKJV, etc.)?
Was it really EDITED by...a king? Of men?

This might be of some help www.youtube.com...

It goes thru everything about the reasons behind it, to who was in control of actual translation, and mentions certain discrepancies. (note: I believe the user uploaded all the parts to this. dunno why the first one's only 2 minutes or so long, but the next set of parts are about 10 minutes each).

Originally posted by pintobean
1st question: "His kind". This goes back to the evolution argument. If Cain killed Abel and Cain left to marry, who did he marry since their parents were God's first people? I and many other Christians believe the creation theory is true and evolution is true (you should research The Gap Theory). Since Eve was tempted by Satan in early Genesis, a lot happened before the book was written- including the fall of Satan. I think God created the earth and events happened such as evolution of ape men and animals. Adam and Eve are referred to as God's people (God's creations). That doesn't mean that other man-like creatures and animals didn't exist through evolution. God was making His animals for His people. Can I prove this? no. This is one of those questions we'll have to ask one day.



2nd question: "let US make man". God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit and one God Head but are 3 different intities (spelling sucks). In Rev. especially, Jesus (the Lamb) is referred to the one who was, and is, and is to come. Also all of Heaven in it's inhabitants were all ready created.
God is speaking as the Creator, announcing his crowning work to the members of his heavenly court.

Ist question answer: In the beginning, with perfect bodies, there was no restriction on incest. Laws of incest did not come about until after the bottleneck in the gene pool when Noah and his family were the only living humans. Lifetimes shortened from 900 years to 120 years.

The Gap Theory is invalid, as a close review of Genesis 1 and 2 would reveal. The creation of Satan and man were at the same time, as prior to this time there was no universe. Satan is a creature, like you and me. He only has powers that God gives to him. I believe the Earth and so forth was created in a period of 6 days, and there is scientific evidence to prove that is true. For example: www.halos.com... You have additional testimony from Jesus himself. First, Jesus referred to Adam and Eve as real people. Second, you have the miracle of turning water into wine. Six days- six water jugs - instant old wine. Rather than evolution, I believe in extinction. Our Earth had 70 phyla, and now is reduced to under 30. If you watch the news, you can see the extinction process at work. Man is killing the life on his planet. We get rid of things that scare us or poison us.

2nd question answer: God said let us make man... God=Elohim=plural of Eloi (God) ... in our image ... not images. Man was created in the image (body) and likeness (spirit) of God. This likeness (spirit) fell from grace, and we are now made in the likeness of our fallen (dying) fathers (Genesis 5:1-3).

reply to post by Josephus23


The Gospel of Thomas is shown to have been a late second century document at the earliest, because of it's apparent reliance on the Diatesseron (a Syriac Gospel Harmony composed in 160 A.D.). The reliance can be shown when translating Thomas into Syriac a mnemnonic device used to memorize scripture found in the Diatesseron appears. People tend to lend credibility to Thomas because it is simplistic which makes people believe that it is a "purer" Gospel. Not true in the slightest. It is simply a dumbed down collection of Ya'hshuah's sayings mixed with paleo-Gnostic ideas and gross misogynist prejudices common among Gnostics.

reply to post by Jim Scott


Thank you jimscott for making the point I have been trying to make for the last ten years to my wife's family to whom are catholic. I actually refused them to say their hail marys in my house because afterall it is my house and won't let them pray to mary in my home in the idea that they could defile my abode. Whether I am right or wrong it is my judgement that is at stake. If they don't like it they can leave. They don't have to come to my house to eat nor do I have to listen to them. I am not telling them they can't, I am just saying they aren't allowed to in my home. I've even had a priest sent to my home and he demanded that I call him father then I busted out his own bible and pointed out Matthew 23:9. He got so pissed that he threw his bible at me! Geez if people blindly follow other people and not read their Sacred text then what point is it? I do not understand why people can't read their bible and find out that a junkload of misinformation is crammed down our throats that is purposely directed to get us on the wrong track. Yes churches do this constsntly without reproach.

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by BlueShift

 

I understand. That is the problem with the Pope, he is an autocratic human dictator of the Church of Rome. We all know that humans aren't infallible which is why the Orthodox Bishops solve issues with councils and decide doctrine by consensus. Whereas the Pope feels it is his prerogative to establish his opinions on theology into dogma and doctrine. In fact that is the history of Western Christianity in a nut shell. The Pope decided he held sovereignty over the whole Church because he was Bishop of Rome and used the theologic opinion of Augustine to support his position. This lead to a deterioration in understanding of theology because the Roman Church was locked into juridical Augustinian thinking because other Church fathers had different opinions. So by taking Augustine's opinions as dogma they had to accept the idea of Original Sin as the inherited guilt from Adam and Eve, the seven deadly sins, hell as a torture room, possibility of separation from God, and the Crucifixion as a proptitiation as fact instead of opinion. The Orthodox on the other hand are much more fluid in opinion, preferring to look at concepts foreign to human understanding as "mysteries". For instance, all Catholics believe that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Ya'hshuah the Messiah, Son of the Living God, but Roman Catholics have to explain this with their doctrine of Transubstantiation (theological opinion) whereas the Orthodox just accept it as is. Many opinions had to be established as doctrine once the Roman Catholics trapped themselves in an Augustinain thought box. For instance: how could Mary become the Mother of God while being a human guilty of the sin of Eve? The Roman Catholics are forced by this to enforce the Immaculate Conception doctrine which states that Mary was Immaculately Conceived without Original Sin. The Orthodox never trapped themselves in this one opinion so we simply see Mary as a fulfillment of the Law and promise of God, by whom the disobedience of Eve was undone by obedience and closeness to God. So, Mary was the final result of Jewish obedience to the law that made them righteous enough to bear the Messiah and Son of God. No need to make claims that Mary was free from inherited guilt because we never believed that in the first place.

Excellent reading, thanks. Regarding Mary, I do not understand the need for her to be sinless or perfect to have the Messiah. After all, Adam was made out of earth. Mary was blessed to be able to have Jesus, and was found to be a good person, but that's it.

reply to post by Jim Scott


Elohim is not a plural of God. It refers to the God of the southern kingdom of David, or El as it is known by another name. The priests were known as either the Shiloh or Aaronid priests. (honestly I can't remember which one is which, but the God of the Northern Kingdom was Jehovah)

That is what Bible scholars teach, not what is doctrine of the many faiths of the protestant denominations.

It is speculated by some that Elohim could mean many Gods, but that would blow a hole right through the new covenant.
El was the God of Abraham and the Canaanites.

I am terribly confused with something here and I hope someone can clear this up because for 15 years trying to get answers for many religious people(family,close friends,my ex's) from various religions but mainly the following:

1.Most denominations of Christianity.
2.Sikhism
3.Islam

Nobody was ever interested in providing me with an intelligent answer and I was usually met with ridicule and scorn.All I got was passive aggressive hate.They just thought I was crazy and should not be questioning the established order of specific systems and religions.

But all men are flawed,theist and atheist alike and both sides can make really stupid arguments to support their beliefs.But for today,this is for the theist out there.


If God is all knowing and all powerful since the beginning of time and creation and therefore the embodiment of everything , He would encompass every possible interaction ever conceived within His infinite consciousness.Not just the "good"(e.g love,justice,charity) but also the "bad"(e.g pain,hate,anger etc.).And everything else in between.

He would have foreseen the rise and fall of creation.He would have foreseen the glorious but prideful nature of Lucifer and his resulting fall from grace.He would have foreseen the serpent tempting Eve with the apple.He would have foreseen Judas betraying Jesus.Most importantly,he would have foreseen how each and everyone of us,even before the conception of our souls,would have lived our lives.How our experiences would have shaped us.How resulting interactions within our environment would also mold our personalities and attitudes to both the material and perhaps the spiritual.He would have understood if someone's desire was to do good but it only lead to evil.Or if the path of evil would have eventually led to good.

He would have understood if someone thought Buddhism was a ridiculous idea or if an individual believed that Christ lived for our sins instead of dying for it.He would have understood why a radical Islamic terrorist would have done what he did by blowing himself up near innocent families with their children around.He would have also understood that if an individual made sense of the universe an atheist,that it was perfectly acceptable because that very idea would have also been God's idea as well(remember,He encompasses everything).Yeah wrap your head around that,God may be an atheist too =P.

And He allowed it all to happen and continues to allow it happen.Why?Because it is obvious that God (and even me and you) know that every single one of our experiences is so radically different from each other's.Our interpretation and how we understand the world is dependent wholly on these experiences.Think for a moment how you came to believe what you currently believe.A series of events lead you there.A very long series of events.

Is there a right one?Perhaps there is only one?Some argue yes,but by doing that are you not limiting what God can and cannot do?How do you know your Bible,the Quran,The Guru Granth Sahib,The Nag Hamaddi text are divinely inspired?They all share similarities as they also can greatly contradict one another.While they alleviate God....to well..God,they also humanize him and that greatly limits the entire idea of God and therefore,limiting the understanding of God.

The moment,you say that yours is the only way ,are you not degrading God ?

reply to post by Jim Scott


Thanks for taking time to respond, I'm sure you are correct in what you say and will spend time researching my ignorance more, however to consider even the KJV an accurate translation from aramaic is dubious to say the least, as a native English speaker and having lived in Israel for 10 years during the 90's (no I'm not jewish I've got enough problems without that as well, no offence meant to Jews on this site, my kids are Jewish) I am more than aware of crosstranslation problems. E.G. the hebrew for I don't mind, and I don't care are (in modern spoken hebrew) the same phonetically (lo hapatli) however the recipient of such a sentence can take this two very different ways, just saying it is more than reasonable to suspect that misinterpretation even through a misplaced punctuation mark (take texting as an example, no inflection no idea as to whether it's tounge in cheek or an outright insult), I just believe TPTB then as now fed us with what they wanted us to hear in order to bend us to their will, (It's ok to attack Libyia but let's not mention Bahrain even though the same is happening eye for an eye etc., turn the other cheek) the inconvinient truth is, that it's the truth.
As was, is and ever shall be (Elohim)
Thanks again and may your angels bless you

reply to post by ChaosComplex


i have always had the same thought that ancient astronuats and god sound like the same thing to me

Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

Why would you call the Gospel of Thomas "heretical"?

What evidence can you present that proves that it was created to destroy the church?

The only way that it differs from the other 4 "official" Gospels is that it is not an account of the life of Jesus, but it merely discusses his teachings.

Btw...
Assumptions are very bad to make, unless it is solely concerning yourself.

Let's start with this one:

In one chapter/verse Jesus says that a woman must become a man to get to heaven.

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Well?

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by Josephus23

 

The Gospel of Thomas is shown to have been a late second century document at the earliest, because of it's apparent reliance on the Diatesseron (a Syriac Gospel Harmony composed in 160 A.D.). The reliance can be shown when translating Thomas into Syriac a mnemnonic device used to memorize scripture found in the Diatesseron appears. People tend to lend credibility to Thomas because it is simplistic which makes people believe that it is a "purer" Gospel. Not true in the slightest. It is simply a dumbed down collection of Ya'hshuah's sayings mixed with paleo-Gnostic ideas and gross misogynist prejudices common among Gnostics.

edit on 21-3-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

All of the accounts of "Jesus" were written 100 to 200 years after his existence, with the exception of the account of...

Josephus.

And many have reason to believe that his account was biased and flawed.

Again, I invite you to the discussion that is linked in my signature. From reading your replies, you are one of a few that I think could hold their own in that thread.

Originally posted by ChaosComplex
****Let me start this by saying I am here to ask questions and learn. I have no intentions of bashing anyone for their beliefs, as I accept all ideas for thought.****

So I decided to start to read the Bible, and already in the first few minutes of reading I have a huge issue.

"1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

"after his kind" makes me think that these creatures were based on creatures that existed somewhere else...

"1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

What? Let US make? In OUR image? After OUR likeness? What the... How can no one have an issue with this?

edit on 3/20/2011 by ChaosComplex because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/20/2011 by ChaosComplex because: (no reason given)

I'm sure someone's already said thos - but "let us make main in OUR image" is because God is the trinity: Father, Son, and Spirt.

If you have faith in God, then you have to accept that His being is pretty much out of our ability to comprehend. BUT, the only earthly example of this I can give you is that I'm a baseball coach for my son's little league team. I'm also obviously a father. I'm also a husband.

I serve multiple roles, but I'm the same person. Now God is actually three entities in one, called the "Trinity"....

Like I said, faith isn't easy.

As far as the other stuff - I'd suggest you try reading a "New Living Translation" of the Bible. A lot of that junk is old King James stuff being held over, and think about how hard Shakespeare was in high school... now inject the complexity of Creation with the "King's English" and you have a recipe for confusion.

reply to post by InnerstellarOne


who created god, so much of what you say is the word of man not the word of God. God does not mind people questioning things

Originally posted by agentblue
reply to post by Jim Scott

 

Thank you jimscott for making the point I have been trying to make for the last ten years to my wife's family to whom are catholic. I actually refused them to say their hail marys in my house because afterall it is my house and won't let them pray to mary in my home in the idea that they could defile my abode. Whether I am right or wrong it is my judgement that is at stake. If they don't like it they can leave. They don't have to come to my house to eat nor do I have to listen to them. I am not telling them they can't, I am just saying they aren't allowed to in my home. I've even had a priest sent to my home and he demanded that I call him father then I busted out his own bible and pointed out Matthew 23:9. He got so pissed that he threw his bible at me! Geez if people blindly follow other people and not read their Sacred text then what point is it? I do not understand why people can't read their bible and find out that a junkload of misinformation is crammed down our throats that is purposely directed to get us on the wrong track. Yes churches do this constsntly without reproach.

Thank you for your reply. I'm surprised the priest threw the Bible, but I suppose that's a new approach to spreading the gospel worldwide. You're right, but people don't just read it. Maybe it's too hard for most people to understand, so they skip it and let someone tell them what is in it. That's when trouble begins, right? I like the Bereans, in Acts, who searched the scriptures to see if what they were being fed was truth or not. Acts 17:11. Of course, Jesus cautioned us against being deceived, or believing false doctrine. I know there are a lot of bad examples in churches, but there are a lot of really good ones, too. Keep searching in your area, don't give up. I usually start with asking them if they believe in tithing. If they do, I walk out. Not even Jews pay tithing anymore.

reply to post by ag893


people have every right to question something, your god may not be everyone's god