Christian doctrines vs scripture

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
With any book, there is always the possibility of the reader misunderstanding the writer, or even worse, ending up following somebody elses misinterpretation of it. The bible is not an exception to this. However, since the bible is a religious document, any misunderstanding or misinterpretation of it, leads to a faulty belief system.

The meanings of some things in the bible are 100% clear, and is understood without much confusion. Jesus' birth, his mother, his persecution by the Jews etc. If these were disputed, christians would be quick to pull up verses which directly addresses the issue, and end the matter quickly.

However, certain doctrines crucial to christianity, such as the "trinity","original sin" and "sin sacrifice" are the subject of ongoing debate, mainly because of a number of biblical statements which directly contradict those doctrines. What we know as "christianity" is basically a set of unbiblical man-made doctrines arising from grave misunderstandings and faulty interpretations of the bible.

Here are a few examples :
Christian doctrine teaches : God is a trinity.
The Bible shows : God and His prophets and Jesus explicitly teach that God is one. Jesus never taught "Hear O Israel, your God is triune".

Christian doctrine teaches : Sin sacrifice; that Jesus died for our sins and that whoever believes so will be redeemed of sin.
The Bible shows : The "sacrifice" was a Roman execution procedure. There was nothing ritualistic about it. Neither God nor His prophets and Jesus ever taught that people are redeemed by believing Jesus died for their sins.

Christian doctrine teaches : Original sin.; all people are tainted with the sin of Adam and Eve.
The Bible shows : God has always distinguished between righteous and evil. Starting from Abel, son of Adam who God was pleased.

We see that none of these doctrines are directly affirmed through a statement by God, Jesus and the prophets... but are instead contradicted. We also see that the doctrines conflict with a biblical theme thats consistent throughout the bible. So, Christians resort to compositing several unrelated verses from all over the bible, so as to be able to present their doctrine as having biblical basis. This approach is akin to taking a book and cutting/pasting words and sentences around to present a different story.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lets take the doctrine of Jesus' sin sacrifice to redeem the believer of his sins as a case study.
OT verses pertaining to animal sacrifice are often cited, and parallels are drawn between Jesus and the unblemished animal... and also the animals purpose to erase sins is cited to parallel Jesus' purpose to do the same.

Very well then, lets look at the differences between the OT animal sacrifices and the supposed sacrifice of Jesus. In order for Jesus' execution to be the "sin sacrifice" that was supposedly foreshadowed by the OT animal sacrifices, there needs to be consistencies in the similiarities.

To illustrate what I am talking about, I made a comparative chart.


Yet, christians gloss over these vital differences and still maintain that Jesus' execution had a ritualistic purpose. This is just one example of faulty scripture citing to present a doctrine as biblically sound.

I have made a more detailed thread regarding this particular example here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point of this thread is to demonstrate how "christian" doctrine is a world apart from the source scripture.
Those who preach a certain doctrine, do so only after manipulating the listener into accepting their flawed interpretation of whats there in the bible. The reason a dispute even exists regarding christian doctrine is because it is unbiblical by itself.

This is why anyone who disagrees with christian doctrine can use the bible itself to prove the doctrine mongers wrong.


Now, in conclusion... what if we could get someone who has never heard of christianity to read the bible on his own? Will he finish and develop an understanding that resembles the christian doctrines of "trinity", "sin sacrifice", "original sin" and so on?

Or will he come to understand the bible in a completely different way?


edit on 27-3-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   
If we could get someone who has never heard of the bible and was an adult they would read it and say "what a load of tosh" and throw it away..



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by boymonkey74
 


But even then, would he arrive at an understanding that resembles christian doctrines such as "trinity", "original sin" and "Jesus' sin sacrifice"?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



what if we could get someone who has never heard of christianity to read the bible on his own? Will finish and develop an understanding that resembles the christian doctrines of "trinity", "sin sacrifice", "original sin" and so on?


Well since the bible is a very long and tedious book... said reader would likely find a church and let someone else tell him what it says inside... and thus another "christian" is born...

On the other hand IF said reader started at the right spot, they would develop an understanding of the one man most of the book is about... and thus, an understanding of what God is about as well...

Matthew to John should be the first 4 books... they are the only books that truely matter...




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



Christian doctrine teaches : God is a trinity.
The Bible shows : God and His prophets and Jesus explicitly teach that God is one. Jesus never taught "Hear O Israel, your God is triune".


There is ample scripture regarding the doctrine of the trinity from genesis, lest they become like "us", to the gospels account of being baptized in the name of the Father, son, and Holy Spirit. We worship God as Father, Jesus as his glorified lamb and savior, and the Holy Spirit is our comforter who Jesus has sent to us in his absence.

Again, regardless of the lack of the word triune or trinity, there is ample evidence for the doctrine although we don't worship all 3 as Father, just the one.


Christian doctrine teaches : Sin sacrifice; that Jesus died for our sins and that whoever believes so will be redeemed of sin.
The Bible shows : The "sacrifice" was a Roman execution procedure. There was nothing ritualistic about it. Neither God nor His prophets and Jesus ever taught that people are redeemed by believing Jesus died for their sins.


Crucifixion was not a practice of the Jews. How else would prophecy be fulfilled lest the Romans hang him from a tree, pierce his side, gamble for his clothes, etc etc etc as we can find in the OT scripture of the account to be of the savior of the world. Also, is John 3:16 enough to refute that final claim?


Christian doctrine teaches : Original sin.; all people are tainted with the sin of Adam and Eve.
The Bible shows : God has always distinguished between righteous and evil. Starting from Abel, son of Adam who God was pleased.


Righteousness through works was the order of Able's day. Even Abel was required to bring a sacrifice for sin. Our human nature is the sin nature, whereas the nature of God through the Holy Spirit is how we overcome being just animals, attaining unto God's nature.



We see that none of these doctrines are directly affirmed through a statement by God, Jesus and the prophets... but are instead contradicted.We also see that the doctrines conflict with a biblical theme thats consistent throughout the bible.


Refuted and false


So, Christians resort to compositing several unrelated verses from all over the bible, so as to be able to present their doctrine as having biblical basis. This approach is akin to taking a book and cutting/pasting words and sentences around to present a different story.


It's funny how to some the problem with the Bible is that it is so contradictory while to others the problem is that building truth and doctrine based corroborating scripture in perfect unity is derided for being akin to copying and pasting unrelated words and sentences, in which some cases may be correct but not this one. There is no pleasing some is there
? mercy



In conclusion, 1 John 4



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Great thread idea! s/f

One of the probs with the bible is that it's not published in the same order the included "texts" (whether forgeries or not) are written.

You might think this is impossible. If, like me, you grew up with a Sunday school understanding of the scriptures, then you think of God as not having “taken shape” at all. He was there in the beginning, fully formed, and he then gave form to everything else. That’s the story in the Bible, at least. What’s more, serious scholars, including Yehezkel Kaufmann and many he influenced, have analyzed the Bible and come away with a similarly dramatic account of Yahweh’s birth.
But, this isn’t really the story in the Bible, or at least not the whole story. If you read the Hebrew Bible carefully, it tells the story of a god in evolution, a god whose character changes radically from beginning to end.
There’s a problem, however, if you want to watch this story unfold. You can’t just start reading the first chapter of Genesis and plow forward, waiting for God to grow. The first chapter of Genesis was almost certainly written later than the second chapter of Genesis, by a different author. The Hebrew Bible took shape slowly, over many centuries, and the order in which it was written is not the order in which it now appears. Fortunately, biblical scholarship can in some cases give us a pretty good idea of which texts followed which. This knowledge of the order of composition is a kind of “decoder” that allows us to see a pattern in God’s growth that would otherwise be hidden.
evolutionofgod.net...

When you put all this together—a reading of the Canaanite texts, a selective “decoding” of the biblical texts, and a new archaeological understanding of Israelite history—you get a whole new picture of the Abrahamic god. It’s a picture that, on the one hand, absolves Abrahamic monotheism of some of the gravest charges against it, yet on the other hand, challenges the standard basis of monotheistic faith. It’s a picture that renders the Abrahamic god in often unflattering terms, yet charts his maturation and offers hope for future growth. And certainly it’s a picture very different from the one drawn in the average synagogue, church, or mosque.…

edit on 27-3-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-3-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Very true...

Understand the ONE man that knew God personally FIRST...

The rest becomes clear once that first issue is understood.

Plus it helps one see the errors in the book as well

You can't start from Genesis and expect to know God.. Its not possible considering the attrocities the so called "God(s)" in the OT are responsible for.


edit on 27-3-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


Still on your "Jesus is not God" kick?

I answered you in this thread with scripture.

Acts 22 by Skorpion



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Here are a few examples :
Christian doctrine teaches : God is a trinity.
The Bible shows : God and His prophets and Jesus explicitly teach that God is one. Jesus never taught "Hear O Israel, your God is triune".


Isaiah 9:6:

"For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon[a] his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, MIGHTY GOD,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."


Christian doctrine teaches : Sin sacrifice; that Jesus died for our sins and that whoever believes so will be redeemed of sin.
The Bible shows : The "sacrifice" was a Roman execution procedure. There was nothing ritualistic about it. Neither God nor His prophets and Jesus ever taught that people are redeemed by believing Jesus died for their sins.


Pretexts:

1) Noah's Ark. Worldwide judgement. One door. One way to be saved. Open to all, but few chose to honour what God had done.
2) Abhraham / Isaac. "Father, where is the lamb?" "God Himself will provide the sacrifice, my son." Note that God did NOT provide a lamb to Abraham, despite sparing Isaac. What DID he provide? A ram. Where, then, was the promised lamb? Christ.
3) Isaiah 53: "He was led like a SHEEP to the slaughter..." "He was pierced for our transgressions, wounded for our iniquities". Sounds like substitutionary atonement to me.
4) Adam and Eve - who clothed them? God did. With what? ANIMAL SKIN. "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin" (Hebrews 9:22).

I could go on and on. I won't.



Christian doctrine teaches : Original sin.; all people are tainted with the sin of Adam and Eve.
The Bible shows : God has always distinguished between righteous and evil. Starting from Abel, son of Adam who God was pleased.


...the mistake you make here is in assuming that the two statements are incompatible. They are not. Abraham was "justified by faith" (Hebrews 11). Faith in what? In Christ! The OT foreshadows what the NT fulfils. Those who lived under the law were made righteous not by the keeping of the law, but by trusting that what God had revealed was Mighty to Save. This is what the book of Romans speaks so deeply about in the early chapters.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 


In regards to the OP. Ever hear of Hebrew symbolism? No? Didn't think so. The OT is plum full of prophecies about Christ's future sacrifice.

Genesis 22:1-19

Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham, and said to him, “Abraham!”

And he said, “Here I am.”

2 Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

3 So Abraham rose early in the morning and saddled his donkey, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son; and he split the wood for the burnt offering, and arose and went to the place of which God had told him. 4 Then on the third day Abraham lifted his eyes and saw the place afar off. 5 And Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; the lad[a] and I will go yonder and worship, and we will come back to you.”

6 So Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife, and the two of them went together. 7 But Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, “My father!”

And he said, “Here I am, my son.”

Then he said, “Look, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?”

8 And Abraham said, “My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.” So the two of them went together.

9 Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. 10 And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.

11 But the Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!”

So he said, “Here I am.”

12 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”

13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”

15 Then the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the Lord, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son— 17 blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your descendants as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies. 18 In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” 19 So Abraham returned to his young men, and they rose and went together to Beersheba; and Abraham dwelt at Beersheba.

So, as you can see this is prophecy about God providing a sacrifice of his own, but unlike what Abraham said, it was not a lamb but a ram. Who is the Lamb of God again?

As for the Trinity:

Matthew 28: 18-20

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

So the Trinity is biblical. You people can believe whatever you want, but it will not be the truth. You might as well just stop using the bible to try and prove your theories. The bible is the Word of God, and it is the Living Word, if you were a believer everytime you pick it up and read it you learn something new, like the words change. You can read one verse, and come back and reread it the next day and it has new meaning, you find revelation.

That book was not written for the unbelievers, it was written for those who accept the covenant, this is why you do not understand what you read. It is our guidebook and the message Christ gave us to give to the world is ours to share. If you do not accept it fine, go your own way but stop mocking Yah.

edit on 27-3-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
*facepalm*

BRB, I've got a thread to start challenging American civil rights with the Bill of Rights.

Next time use the search feature instead of whoring for stars and flags.

edit on 27-3-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 



"There is ample scripture regarding the doctrine of the trinity from genesis", lest they become like "us", to the gospels account of being baptized in the name of the Father, son, and Holy Spirit. We worship God as Father, Jesus as his glorified lamb and savior, and the Holy Spirit is our comforter who Jesus has sent to us in his absence.


The "ample scripture" you speak of is a number of ambiguous verses that you compile and re-interpret as pointing towards the trinity. This is exactly what I meant when I said Christians resort to compositing several unrelated verses from all over the bible, so as to be able to present their doctrine as having biblical basis.

In reality, there are several unambiguous statements that confirm God is one. So what are you going to do with those scriptures?


Crucifixion was not a practice of the Jews. How else would prophecy be fulfilled lest the Romans hang him from a tree, pierce his side, gamble for his clothes, etc etc etc as we can find in the OT scripture of the account to be of the savior of the world. Also, is John 3:16 enough to refute that final claim?

First off, human sacrifice is abominable to God.
Yet, the animal sacrifices of the OT is mentioned in an attempt to make Jesus' execution into a ritual sacrifice. And I have already shown that the Roman style execution could NOT be a parallel to the ritual animal sacrifices to God.




Righteousness through works was the order of Able's day. Even Abel was required to bring a sacrifice for sin. Our human nature is the sin nature, whereas the nature of God through the Holy Spirit is how we overcome being just animals, attaining unto God's nature.


Hang on, nothing is mentioned about Abel and Cain making "sin sacrifices". Genesis 4 says they just made an offering. When did God command they bring "sin sacrifices"? What sins had Abel and Cain committed to even offer a "sin sacrifice"? Well?

So basically you assumed Abels "offering" was a "sin sacrifice".... then you tied it up with the concept of sin. Again, more verse compositing...
Regarding original sin, I'll stick with the recurring biblical theme that God always distinguished between righteous people and sinners. If original sin was biblically valid, God would have stated that all humans are sinners.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 



It's funny how to some the problem with the Bible is that it is so contradictory while to others the problem is that building truth and doctrine based corroborating scripture in perfect unity is derided for being akin to copying and pasting unrelated words and sentences, in which some cases may be correct but not this one.


Corroborating scripture in perfect unity does not mean you neglect crucial verses that DIRECTLY address the particular issues mentioned in the OP.

eg- When a number of verses define God as being "one"... it becomes a biblical theme. Theres no debating that. Instead you compile a number of vague verses to maintain that there is a trinity.
You explain away the statements that directly mention God as being one.... by connecting ambiguous verses here and there to make it look like the overall theme of the Bible is that God is triune.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 



In regards to the OP. Ever hear of Hebrew symbolism? No? Didn't think so. The OT is plum full of prophecies about Christ's future sacrifice.





So the Trinity is biblical. You people can believe whatever you want, but it will not be the truth. You might as well just stop using the bible to try and prove your theories. The bible is the Word of God, and it is the Living Word, if you were a believer everytime you pick it up and read it you learn something new, like the words change. You can read one verse, and come back and reread it the next day and it has new meaning, you find revelation.


Father, son and Holy Spirit being mentioned in the same line is NOT proof of the trinity.
The Bible is a document framed using a language. The meanings of the words do not change. And if you think they do, its a perception.
I read and understand "God is one " today and I come back and read it tomorrow, I'm pretty sure its still going to mean the same.




That book was not written for the unbelievers, it was written for those who accept the covenant, this is why you do not understand what you read.

And how did you come to believe what you believe today? Did you really read the bible all by yourself and understand that it actually taught the trinity and the sin sacrifice?
Would you rather have a non-christian read the bible on his own? Or should somebody else explain what the bible is all about, and inject all those wrong christian doctrines into his mind?

Its like having a novel that I'd really want you to read but I fear you wont understand it, so I'll just narrate my understanding of the book to you i.e - tell you what I understood of the book. How would you know if I ever made a mistake in comprehending the novel.

The rest of your post was more of the same verse compositing. When a number of verses define God as being "one"... it becomes a biblical theme. Theres no debating that. There is no need to start compiling vague verses, which you perceive to point towards your doctrine.... to maintain what you believe.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


As for the sacrifice of the ram, that's another OT bit that's wrongly interpreted as being a parallel to Jesus sacrifice. If you are going to go by parallels between this and that, then you better go all the way. Don't just stop at superficial similarities present in the accounts you see parallels between.

Sure, God provided a ram... but that was to save a human being, the son of Abraham, who God loved.
Yet.... you believe it parallels Jesus, the most perfect of humans, was sacrificed for sinners?

If Abrahams sacrifice indeed foreshadowed Jesus sacrifice... then Jesus, like the innocent son, should have been substituted by another "ram in the thicket". Instead your bizarre perception of the ram story reverses the players...



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



And how did you come to believe what you believe today? Did you really read the bible all by yourself and understand that it actually taught the trinity and the sin sacrifice?
Would you rather have a non-christian read the bible on his own? Or should somebody else explain what the bible is all about, and inject all those wrong christian doctrines into his mind?

Its like having a novel that I'd really want you to read but I fear you wont understand it, so I'll just narrate my understanding of the book to you i.e - tell you what I understood of the book. How would you know if I ever made a mistake in comprehending the novel.

Yes, it's exactly like that. "Here's this great novel....but, since it's over your head, I'll just give you the synopsis. Mmmmkay? No no, you don't need to worry, I have it all sorted. Just listen to me."



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 



"There is ample scripture regarding the doctrine of the trinity from genesis", lest they become like "us", to the gospels account of being baptized in the name of the Father, son, and Holy Spirit. We worship God as Father, Jesus as his glorified lamb and savior, and the Holy Spirit is our comforter who Jesus has sent to us in his absence.


The "ample scripture" you speak of is a number of ambiguous verses that you compile and re-interpret as pointing towards the trinity. This is exactly what I meant when I said Christians resort to compositing several unrelated verses from all over the bible, so as to be able to present their doctrine as having biblical basis.

In reality, there are several unambiguous statements that confirm God is one. So what are you going to do with those scriptures?


As I said, doctrine dictates God is father and is one, and Jesus is son, along with the Holy Spirit. Both doctrines exist and do not contradict each other for we worship God as one and Father, Jesus as son, and the Holy Spirit as our Comforter. That is what we do with it




Crucifixion was not a practice of the Jews. How else would prophecy be fulfilled lest the Romans hang him from a tree, pierce his side, gamble for his clothes, etc etc etc as we can find in the OT scripture of the account to be of the savior of the world. Also, is John 3:16 enough to refute that final claim?

First off, human sacrifice is abominable to God.
Yet, the animal sacrifices of the OT is mentioned in an attempt to make Jesus' execution into a ritual sacrifice. And I have already shown that the Roman style execution could NOT be a parallel to the ritual animal sacrifices to God.


This isn't about ritual or law anymore, it is about grace and the unconditional love of our Father. The blood of animals cannot and never did wash away the consciousness of sin. Jesus was fully God and fully man. He is our perfect sacrifice from God. You are seeing through very humanistic eyes here instead of seeing our Father's divine efficacy at work for we who are made in his image and likeness.





Righteousness through works was the order of Able's day. Even Abel was required to bring a sacrifice for sin. Our human nature is the sin nature, whereas the nature of God through the Holy Spirit is how we overcome being just animals, attaining unto God's nature.


Hang on, nothing is mentioned about Abel and Cain making "sin sacrifices". Genesis 4 says they just made an offering. When did God command they bring "sin sacrifices"? What sins had Abel and Cain committed to even offer a "sin sacrifice"? Well?

So basically you assumed Abels "offering" was a "sin sacrifice".... then you tied it up with the concept of sin. Again, more verse compositing...


According to your line of reasoning there would be no reason for God to reject the offering of Cain. I mean, he did pour out his sweat on the ground to till the field bringing God the firstfruits but we also know that the curse on adam and man for sin was to work the field which is why that sacrifice was not accepted, it was cain's duty whereas if we read between the lines a bit (you may call it compositing) but God made clothes of animal skin for adam and eve to cover their nakedness (sin/knowledge of sin). This is why we see Abel's offering as pleasing to God because God required blood sacrifice for sin having had been the first to shed blood (presumably) Himself.

Again, a little discernment and reading between the lines for meaning goes a long way. Nevertheless don't believe if you don't want to.



Regarding original sin, I'll stick with the recurring biblical theme that God always distinguished between righteous people and sinners. If original sin was biblically valid, God would have stated that all humans are sinners.


Biblically valid would mean Romans 3:23, James 2:10, Psalm 51:5. How is it when I provide scripture it is ambiguous and invalid while you can claim recurring biblical themes, presumably based on scripture too, yet you provide none? When has the righteousness of man apart from God ever been anything other than filthy rags before our Father? The unambiguous theme is that Christ's righteousness through faith is imputed unto us just like the symbol of righteousness being imputed unto Abraham because of faith in God's Word.






posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 



It's funny how to some the problem with the Bible is that it is so contradictory while to others the problem is that building truth and doctrine based corroborating scripture in perfect unity is derided for being akin to copying and pasting unrelated words and sentences, in which some cases may be correct but not this one.


Corroborating scripture in perfect unity does not mean you neglect crucial verses that DIRECTLY address the particular issues mentioned in the OP.

eg- When a number of verses define God as being "one"... it becomes a biblical theme. Theres no debating that. Instead you compile a number of vague verses to maintain that there is a trinity.
You explain away the statements that directly mention God as being one.... by connecting ambiguous verses here and there to make it look like the overall theme of the Bible is that God is triune.




Again, both doctrines exist and unity. God is Father and we worship him as such; He is one. I, Christians, believe that as scriptural truth. Jesus is His sacrificial lamb who He has glorified unto the redemption of our souls from sin. And the Holy Spirit is God's very Spirit sent unto us as a comforter in this vain world. The three are one and yet they are separate as well. God is one, Jesus is son, and the Holy Spirit we have access to by faith in Christ according to what our Father has graciously willed unto us.

There is nothing ambiguous about either of those doctrines and Christians accept both as scriptural truth.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 




As I said, doctrine dictates God is father and is one, and Jesus is son, along with the Holy Spirit. Both doctrines exist and do not contradict each other for we worship God as one and Father, Jesus as son, and the Holy Spirit as our Comforter. That is what we do with it

First, read the verses that detail Jesus' birth in the gospels...
The angel that spoke to Mary said "thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. "
The angel did not say anything about Jesus being fully God and fully man....who would also be a perfect sacrifice, as christian doctrine fasely teaches.

Jesus can't be both the biological "son of Mary" and the "begotten son of God".
God created Jesus directly in the womb of Mary, who carried him and gave birth to him.




Jesus was fully God and fully man. He is our perfect sacrifice from God. You are seeing through very humanistic eyes here instead of seeing our Father's divine efficacy at work for we who are made in his image and likeness.

But the idea of a "perfect sacrifice" itself is faulty doctrine.
The scriptures indicate that Jesus "death" was by a Roman execution, it was not a sacrifice to God...



According to your line of reasoning there would be no reason for God to reject the offering of Cain. I mean, he did pour out his sweat on the ground to till the field bringing God the firstfruits

We do know that Cain did something wrong with his offering. Because when Cain was angry at being rejected, God said "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?"

Nothing is really mentioned about what the "right" thing was... so there's no point using Cain and Abel's sacrifice to support the doctrine of "sin sacrifice".




but God made clothes of animal skin for adam and eve to cover their nakedness (sin/knowledge of sin). This is why we see Abel's offering as pleasing to God because God required blood sacrifice for sin having had been the first to shed blood


Did God ask Adam and Eve to make a blood sacrifice to atone for sin? NO.
God punished Adam and Eve by making their lives difficult...

You are drawing imaginary connections to instances of animal slaughter. You seem to think, because theres animal blood here and animal blood there, it must all refer to the same thing.

Then you take it one step further and say, theres animals being killed for sin and theres Jesus who was also killed and you conclude that the purpose for Jesus' death was a sin sacrifice. In other words, you have reduced Jesus to a mere sacrificial animal.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by HeFrippedMeOff
 

(Regarding original sin)

How is it when I provide scripture it is ambiguous and invalid while you can claim recurring biblical themes, presumably based on scripture too, yet you provide none? When has the righteousness of man apart from God ever been anything other than filthy rags before our Father?


Please read the verse about the righteousness of man being "like filthy rags" in proper context. Just the verse before it says about God-

"You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember your ways. But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry. How then can we be saved?"

Does that sound like God treats people as if they are all sinners by default?

In the next verse, Isaiah is lamenting that the people became corrupt and that their righteousness was tainted like filthy rags. It does not mean that all people are under original sin.

God maintains a distinction between sinners and righteous people, as I mentioned in the OP.
As one example, read through Ezekiel 33:11-19. The idea is that if you will be "righteous" or a sinner" depending on your deeds. God does not club everyone as "sinners" tainted by original sin. Even in the new testament, Zechariah and Elizabeth are considered as "righteous"....
Like I said, its a recurring theme throughout the bible.

The bible shows that God judges people over what they do and that people become "sinners" only with their actions
edit on 29-3-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join