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.

 

My first issues with the Bible.

page: 33
47
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


God has always been a male and female figure. The Jews always viewed it that way. but the Holy Spirit was never this mother. The Holy spirit is just Christ in us all. This is what Jesus said.

While the trinity is never spoken of, it is implied. God and Jesus are one and yet not. Jesus never claims to be God as the same, but he says they are the same. The Holy Spirit is written as the same as Christ, but not the same. Just the same nature. What exactly else can you make of that?

As for female. It is written why. Man needed a helper. And equal. An image of the dualistic nature of God as he is. Thus woman. There needs no archetype, just like Man's archetype, Jesus, never came around until thousands of years later. And he was meant to be for both male and female
edit on 21-3-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
To the original OP kudos to you, you read something and ask questions about it, this is the sign of an intelligent sentient living organism. But if your problem with the Christian bible is simply the term "In his own kind" then I would say while you are starting off in the right direction you are focusing on something that holds no answers for you. All bibles can be interpreted in all manner, you could rightfully argue that Satan is the true lord and Jesus was the anti-Christ, all based upon the same tome.

I say "In his own kind" as anyone who is awake and a student of knowledge could say, could mean anything after so many translations, it could refer to time, it could refer to mammals, DNA, it could refer to the fact that we are all of planet earth, it could relate to the fact that even by our limited understanding we are all of the same origins as the protozoic creatures that still exist, it could refer to evolution, you will find no answers here, or in all your travels. That is the point in itself of a bible.
edit on 21-3-2011 by Liberterius because: typooh



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaosComplex
 


It is a great question! It means that God refers to Himself as We. Does it mean that God comprises many entities? What kind of entities are they? What or who are those entities? By unswering this question perhaps we might come to understanding What or Who God is, if it is at all posible to be understood in the way some people are trying to understand God.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23


You guys have fun with this.

If anyone wishes to actually engage in an academic discussion of this issue then, once AGAIN, I invite you to click on the link in my signature.

Hasta.
Dang right i am having fun with this! Its like sitting in a lawnchair with a six pack of pabst blue ribbon and watchin bugs get zapped in the bug zapper and then your neighbor gettin drunk and peeing on the bug zapper because he says he is tougher than a bug. Yee Haw! this whole post was allegory and insert atheist, christian, bible, disinfo' and aliens wherever you want in my bug zapper statement. BTW I asked a few theologians the questions that the OP asked a few years back and I got answers of the trinity and angels to satan and god were buddies and they fell away from friendship. Hell if I know but it it makes for an interesting enigma



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I kinda like the prospect of being created by aliens :p.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


God has always been a male and female figure. The Jews always viewed it that way. but the Holy Spirit was never this mother. The Holy spirit is just Christ in us all. This is what Jesus said.

While the trinity is never spoken of, it is implied. God and Jesus are one and yet not. Jesus never claims to be God as the same, but he says they are the same. The Holy Spirit is written as the same as Christ, but not the same. Just the same nature. What exactly else can you make of that?

As for female. It is written why. Man needed a helper. And equal. An image of the dualistic nature of God as he is. Thus woman. There needs no archetype, just like Man's archetype, Jesus, never came around until thousands of years later. And he was meant to be for both male and female
edit on 21-3-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


The Trinity is not implied in the Hebrew use of Elohim in the OT. Why do you keep going back to that? I am not saying the Trinity does not exist. I am just saying that the Trinity is not the explanation of the creation of Man. You are mixing up the concept of Elohim creating male and female in His image and likeness, and the metaphor of Eve being created from the rib of Adam. Let's go back to the Hindu variation, Brahman is the masculine principle and Brahma is the Hindu word for Father. Brahman is considered the creative principle. Woman is the feminine principle.
Let's look at this again. The Trinity did not create the archetypes of male and female. In fact there is a word which is fascinating. It's called Androgyny. Look at the wikipedia definition: "Androgyny is a term—derived from the Greek words άνδρoς (andros, meaning man) and γυνή (gyné, meaning woman)—referring to the combination of masculine and feminine characteristics. This may be as in fashion, sexual identity, or sexual lifestyle, or it may refer to biologically inter-sexed physicality, especially with regards to plant and human sexuality.[1]"
Let us ( the androgenous Creative principle and nature of God) create man( in the sense that man is human evolving on earth) in His image and likeness( the male and female principles).



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sergemalov
 


It's easy God is an Alien, its much more logical then some magic invisible being who NEVER steps in when something bad happens, I'm not bashing anyone who believes in God, just bashing your so called God......



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I think you might have just worded incorrectly and meant to refer directly to the male/female aspects in opening line, but yes, the trinity is possible explanation for use of 'elohim'. Elohim is a plural form meaning 'mightly ones', etc., with El being the singular.

In the shema israel, a plural form is also used for "one": 'Hear, O Israel, the LORD our god, the LORD is one" (Deut. 6.4). The word translated "one" is echad, which is a composite singular, like a single crowd being made of a lot of separate individuals, and so on. If they wanted to say there is only a single, solitary entity composing "the LORD", the correct hebrew would have been yichad.

Sorry, pendantic nature kicking in, I think you were just aiming at the other target and got that mixed in.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Scott
reply to post by ChaosComplex
 

Congratulations on your beginning study of the Bible. (I noticed the second post on this thread was Christian-bashing, by the way).

The answer to your questions:
1. Kind was God's way of saying specie, but it is somewhat different than specie today because some can cross-reproduce.
2. Us and our refer to the holy trinity - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. When man was made, he was made in the image of God in his spirit. Notice that there is plural in the reference, but one in the image.
That answers the question. If there are questions about the authenticity of the Trinity, there are plenty of sites you can Google to show how that works.

#1.)The trinity is based in pagan beleifs, of the three faces of the Goddess, Maiden, Mother, and Crone (wise old woman). And you can google that.
2.) The second trinity is of God, Goddess, And Son. Also taken from our oldest religion Paganism. Either one of these could have been the basis for the male holy trinity (a way to repress the divine aspect of the woman folk and oppress them through history) You can also google this.
I mean have you ever seen ANYTHING LIVING created by the male of ANY species ALONE? Come on now. Use some logic.
In your book, God simply CANNOT have any form AS HE ISN'T A PHYSICAL BEING!!!! So what image did he have?
And we are made out of MUD?
Please that is the most retarded part of the entire book. Mudmen lol.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I've heard that the original version of the bible is talking about "Gods" plural. There's a good book on this topic called Secret History of the Earth or something like that by Jonathan Black. Worth reading, goes into the esoteric meanings of the Genesis books and takes it on from there.

I dig this thread. I don't think the OP is trying to poke fun, more understand a different but parallel world view.

I personally subscribe ot the view that Jesus and Gods DO EXIST but not in the sense that their followers would like to claim. I know that God exists in the head of those who believe. He exists as a thought, in my reality tunnel.

So, if (as far as my reality goes) God(s) do exist that makes me a polytheist. Now, polytheism is not new. If we look to the history books we'll see that it's the manner in which humans have usually dealt with God(s) and it's only recently that the concept of monotheism has been introduced into that, by comparison, more nuanced point of view. Another aspect of our dealings with God(s) in the past is the fact we used to remonstrate with them and rarely took them at their word. If there's one thing we used to know, which we seem to have forgotten recently, it's that Gods lie.

A good example of their lies would be the fact that clearly none of the God(s) current versions of the creation myth fit the facts. Allah, Jehova and Yaweh were clearly trying it on when they tricked their followers with their absurd account of creation. Nonsense, obviously.

Why believe them when they say there is only one God when the evidence AGAIN contradicts them?

To follow a God (singular) is to shackle yourself to a particular giant super-consciousness which has its own agenda. The age of aquarius is dawning upon us, we will soon be wallowing in an ocean of mind. It's only your own unique beauty which will distinguish your from your neighbours in 200 years hence. Thus Hail Discordia, the Goddess of difference. All Hail Discordia, the Lady of Chaos. The sacred Chao.

A complicated joke disgused as a religion. Or maybe it's the other way round?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


God has always been a male and female figure. The Jews always viewed it that way. but the Holy Spirit was never this mother. The Holy spirit is just Christ in us all. This is what Jesus said.

While the trinity is never spoken of, it is implied. God and Jesus are one and yet not. Jesus never claims to be God as the same, but he says they are the same. The Holy Spirit is written as the same as Christ, but not the same. Just the same nature. What exactly else can you make of that?

As for female. It is written why. Man needed a helper. And equal. An image of the dualistic nature of God as he is. Thus woman. There needs no archetype, just like Man's archetype, Jesus, never came around until thousands of years later. And he was meant to be for both male and female
edit on 21-3-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


And how many times did I post that Elohim in this way represents the male/female Father/Mother God. I dont know what you mean that Jesus was meant to be for both male and female. Jesus represents the Christ principle. In Hindu philosophy the Christ is Visnu. That is the second person of the Trinity. The Mother aspect is the principle of spirit in matter.
Yes Christ appeared much later in fact later than Krishna, the 7th incarnation of Visnu. I do not see where it is implied anywhere in the Old testament that Elohim represents the Trinity. This concept of the Trinity was articulated by Tertullian "However, the clearest early expression of the concept came with Tertullian, a Latin theologian who wrote in the early third century. Tertullian coined the words "Trinity" and "person" and explained that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were "one in essence - not one in Person." 3"


And again, think how a child is born.....of man and woman, the blending of the male and female principles. You have it backwards, claiming that a trinity of father, son, and holy spirit created the archetypes of Adam and eve.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
An' what he said..

That's the word though, Elohim. It means "Gods". Bring that and The Book of Enoch to the table and we're cookin'!

The Bible really is a good book, even if you don't believe in it literally.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by InnerstellarOne
its not that we get angry or defensive about this.

But when you call god and alien being, Or some pysudo astronaut man, Its kind of degrading against the thought of God, because why would we need to look anywhere else to our creator>? we are made in HIS IMAGE, just look in the mirror, He is closer than our skin, because gods spirit is in us.

I have questioned the thought of elohim being an ET, but that just dosent make sense, Because we know who God is, He sent his son to the earth, God in the flesh.


Does your god really need you to fight his battles for him? Pathetic. Weak!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
I personally dont believe in god, you really think there is one being who created evrything? he has 10 things you must not do or you will go to a place of fire, pain and torture, but he loves you?

Ancient civilisations around the world tell of gods who came from the skys to mate with earthlings?

Christianity is a forced religeon taught to you while you are young, obviously telling a 4 year old if they lie they will burn in hell is harsh to say the least.

God and jesus are not who they are portrayed today, too much evidence points to other theories.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by totalmetal
 


All Gods need their followers to do their bidding. It's their only source of power and direct influence on this world. The Goddess calls you into battle against greyface everyday. Heed her call baby! HailDiscordia!



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Also genesis comes from ancient sumeria (now iraq) and was given to them by "Gods who came from the sky".

The bible you read today has been rewritten by the catholic church and evrything they dont want you to know has been taken out.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


I think you might have just worded incorrectly and meant to refer directly to the male/female aspects in opening line, but yes, the trinity is possible explanation for use of 'elohim'. Elohim is a plural form meaning 'mightly ones', etc., with El being the singular.

In the shema israel, a plural form is also used for "one": 'Hear, O Israel, the LORD our god, the LORD is one" (Deut. 6.4). The word translated "one" is echad, which is a composite singular, like a single crowd being made of a lot of separate individuals, and so on. If they wanted to say there is only a single, solitary entity composing "the LORD", the correct hebrew would have been yichad.

Sorry, pendantic nature kicking in, I think you were just aiming at the other target and got that mixed in.


From what I have read concerning the use of the Hebrew term Elohim, it is used differently in different places in scripture, but there is not an inherent meaning of the trinity in any of these descriptions. I know its tempting to use the plurality of the term to justify the concept of the trinity, but I think the error here is assuming that the trinity created man and woman. Its just simply not a logical understanding of this. I am saying woman was not creeated from Christ, and Jesus represents the Christ principle. The whole point of the divine manchild was to demonstrate the Christ principle as the Son with a father and a mother, the Holy Family. Christ does not create thee mother. The combination of father and mother create son. The son is the product. Not the other way around. Again I believe this misunderstanding stems from the Patriarchal view of woman as being inherently inferior. Therefore she has to come from the dominant superior male.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenWoodsYcc
I personally dont believe in god, you really think there is one being who created evrything? he has 10 things you must not do or you will go to a place of fire, pain and torture, but he loves you?

Ancient civilisations around the world tell of gods who came from the skys to mate with earthlings?

Christianity is a forced religeon taught to you while you are young, obviously telling a 4 year old if they lie they will burn in hell is harsh to say the least.

God and jesus are not who they are portrayed today, too much evidence points to other theories.


I forgot to address this in my earlier posts, sorry. First off, christianity is not a forced religion, any more so than any other belief system including Islam, Judaism, darwinist evolution, keynesian economic theory, and so on. Someone who believes a certain way passing that teaching along to others. That's all.

Regardless, as far as the "do what I say or I'll punish you forever" aspect, this is yet another area where I break with mainstream teaching. When I read what the bible actually says, only those who have accepted the sacrifice of 'Jesus' as their own death to sin and this earthly life, then actually repent and TURN from their sins to not commit them anymore, have eternal life:

"Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

"Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."

"Rev 2:7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To the one who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God."

So, we've got the reward for accepting the christian offer in sincerity as eternal life, and the 'punishment' as death, perishing, destruction, etc. There are a few verses that are slightly more problematic, but also easy to address in context.

I am a believer in annihilation of the soul, and believe the "everyone has an eternal soul" belief as a catholic/mainstream innovation that utterly perverts what is contained in the bible itself and is completely antithetical to any entity I could bring myself to support. Thankfully, I cannot find any reason to validate the belief in an eternal torturer. Instead, I see a loving creator, who DOES see fit to intervene on occassion, but otherwise lets us live in a world of our choosing.

Everyone likes to blame "God' for the bad things that happen, but that doesn't really work. He never promised to make this world a cake walk for us - in fact, quite the opposite according to the bible. He DID promise to reward those who persevere until the end, though. The positive earthly things promised in the bible are peace of the spirit and the like - internals that deal with our relationship with Him and His.

As far as the bad things that we have to deal with in life, honestly we need to look no further than ourselves in most cases. If the few remaining, it does well to remember that we live in a set of dynamic natural systems that unfortunately are not always conducive to all human life.

Be well,
Steve



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenWoodsYcc
Also genesis comes from ancient sumeria (now iraq) and was given to them by "Gods who came from the sky".

The bible you read today has been rewritten by the catholic church and evrything they dont want you to know has been taken out.


Actually I believe you're thinking about the enuma elish, and the second line is honestly kind of silly. The 'catholic' church as we know it came about in the fourth century, the acts of its clergy/etc. disagree STRONGLY with the humble lives and sacrifices of first-century believers, and we have textual support for the christian bible from the first/second centuries and for the jewish bible a couple hundred years before that - well before the 'catholic' church came into play and began mass perversion of the faith.

Regards,
Steve



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
My issue isn't with the bible...or the people who choose to believe it. My issue is with the people who believe it so much that they feel they have carte blanche to use that same book to force others to live under the way that they believe. Not everyone is a christian..muslim etc etc...religion should be a personal experience, between you and your god. When you choose to use your religion to dictate to me what YOU think is right and wrong and what I should be allowed to do or not do, then I have problem.

Lumped into that above group are also the people who use the " the bible is true ..so it doesn't matter what you say" then stick thier fingers in thier ears, or just continue using the same tired old phrases to beat thier point home. My question here is why is your view so much more valid than anyone else's and why do you KNOW it is true? Because you believe it? Belief doesn't necessarily mean fact. Just because you believe it to be true does not make it so, you can put a cat in the over but that doesn't make it a biscuit.

I could make a good case for the Simarillion being just as true, to me. If I believe it enough, following the lines of some religious types thats all it takes to make it a fact. I would never call for the abolishing of all religions, because I think they do help some people who are lost in thier lives or really need something to believe in. I just would like to not have to hear constantly how Group A is going to hell because Group B is right or have laws passed based on a belief system that I do not belong to. ( on a side note...no laws should be based on religion EVER, they should be pondered then passed on a logical basis imho)


So take it as you will,flame me ..or agree, at the end of the day it matters little to me, but after reading most of this thread I felt the need to add my 2cents worth to the debate. Just to add I am netiher a believer or a non-believer, but I am always open to the possibility,but at this point in my life I have neither seen nor heard anything that makes me want to get on my knees praise or shout from the rooftops that he doesn't exist.




top topics



 
47
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join