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.

 

Christian doctrines vs scripture

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
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."


No Wild, with my experience I usually find people trying to attack it only cherry-pick it to death. I don't mean that offensively. For example, people call God horrible, evil, and a murderer, but never consider that He is also loving and righteous and hates sin and rebellion. That He also says He'll destroy His enemies.

Or another one, they'll attack God because He killed all the firstborn of Egypt, but ignore that they first killed all the firstborn of the Hebrews and God was avenging their blood.




posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



No Wild, with my experience I usually find people trying to attack it only cherry-pick it to death. I don't mean that offensively. For example, people call God horrible, evil, and a murderer, but never consider that He is also loving and righteous and hates sin and rebellion. That He also says He'll destroy His enemies.

Or another one, they'll attack God because He killed all the firstborn of Egypt, but ignore that they first killed all the firstborn of the Hebrews and God was avenging their blood.

Haiya, NuT!
I'm not sure what you're "No"ing, here. Yes, people do those things, 'claim' parts of it and 'ignore others' that don't suit their spin. They also refrain from putting the material into historical perspective and matching up the "facts on the ground" with the ambiguous stuff in the Bible. Much recent discovery and upgraded linguistic decoding refutes a LOT of the prior 'understandings' of the very ambiguous and inconsistent Bible.

Is it not imperative that we use it as a tool, just like archaeological digs, discovered texts, etc to figure out what REALLY happened? We revise history and science textbooks every year to reflect more modern knowledge, tossing out the former when we have worked through the problem and come up with a more solid explanation.

Why is this not done with Christian doctrine?

Look at ScienceDaily online, for example, or NatGeo, or HC, or Discovery, or Sci....or any of the journals of such things. We are forever digging up more information, figuring out more complex aspects of the fraction of reality that we perceive, and none of those other subjects are afraid to say "scientists used to believe...", or "it was widely accepted that...." and then continue with "BUT NOW, NEW RESEARCH SUGGESTS..."

This doesn't happen in the Abrahamic sects (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) as they are formally "packaged."
Why not?

Skorpion's questions to lonewolf were astute and valid. To wit:

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?


Also, Akragon pointed it out with this:

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...


I've already offered my own suggestion, and ex-texted the pertinent parts of that one little tiny bit of Robert Wright's VERY IMPORTANT work.

edit on 29-3-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 




Skorpion's questions to lonewolf were astute and valid. To wit:



I said earlier : 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?


The thing is, I grew up reading the bible on my own. I am a hindu by birth.... I've never been part of any church or made contact with people who run one..... so I look at the bible pretty objectively.

Upon reading the bible, I never found in it concepts such as "trinity", "Jesus' sin sacrifice", "original sin" etc.
I only became familiar with these concepts after going through various christian websites and publications, in other words, opinions of other christians.

I believe the bible is pretty much correct as a document that teaches absolute monotheism ... which is why even a non-christian can just use the bible to disprove christian doctrine.
IMO, with christians, its basically, right book wrong interpretation.
edit on 29-3-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2012 by sk0rpi0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Awen24
 

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.
By not describing Jesus, Jesus is being foretold?
That is pretty silly.
This story may have been added as a way to fight the practice of offering children to Moloch, showing that Abraham had enough faith to where he would have done so if required, but is not, where God only requires the faith, and not the sacrifice itself.

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.
It was describing an earlier fallen Israelite king who was killed in battle, and used to describe through analogy, the fate of those carried off into captivity, through no fault of their own but as punishment for the sins of the people in general. The captives, which were the upper class of society and included the temple priesthood, felt themselves unjustly punished, where they saw themselves blameless, and only other people as sinners.

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).
The word in the Hebrew only describes a covering where skin could be one example, so it is a description of a function, and not as a source from which it was taken. It could just mean clothes, and nowhere describes how or from what it was make.

I could go on and on. I won't.
Oh, no, please do, if in fact you have any further material. I keep hearing people go on and on about how there is all this evidence, but they never produce any.
Th OT evidence is that The Lord Himself will come. That happened in the person, Jesus. Jesus is the savior because he moves us forward and to forget all those old legends and myths of the OT, to get on with life and to accept all people as our equals in the sight of God.

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.
I think if there is an analogy to be made from this story, it would be the angry god is the natural universe which endangers every human being who lives, and Jesus is the angel who holds the door from popping open in the waves sweeping around the globe in the midst of the storm.
edit on 29-3-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 

I am a hindu by birth....
News to me but I am glad for this little personal revelation about yourself and I think it will help to put some of what you write into context. I sort of wondered how you came to this particular perspective you have on Christianity and I can't blame you, that's for sure.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
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..


Which is why I was only a believer for less than a year. It makes no sense if you read it as an adult and compare and contrast what you read.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by boymonkey74
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..


Which is why I was only a believer for less than a year. It makes no sense if you read it as an adult and compare and contrast what you read.
Which puts you at the same level as those who heard Jesus preach, saying, "If you believe in me you will never die". It would have seemed just as ridiculous to them as it now does to you.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



News to me but I am glad for this little personal revelation about yourself and I think it will help to put some of what you write into context. I sort of wondered how you came to this particular perspective you have on Christianity and I can't blame you, that's for sure.


My perspective has always been that God is NOT contained within any one religion.
Sure, the hindus are wrong in praying in places of worship that contain idols. But the average hindu always refers to the universal God who controls their life... in other words, they believe that God watches over them and rewards and punishes them according to what they do in life.

The reason I picked up the bible was because I was educated in a christian school and we were given copies of the bible.... I only took a special interest in it and had a special interest in the Psalms where God treats a man as he behaves....where God differentiates between the righteous and the sinners.... where God accepts the repentance of a humbled sinner.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by boymonkey74
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..


Which is why I was only a believer for less than a year. It makes no sense if you read it as an adult and compare and contrast what you read.
you were not a believer actually... and these words carry no weight.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
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..


Thank you for that completely extraneous comment...



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



You need to understand some very basic literary concepts before you come to these type of conclusions. The Bible prophesies the birth of Yeshua, it foreshadows his priestly duties. These are things we take into consideration when we contextualize Yeshua, within the OT and the NT. To say that Christians are seemingly connecting unrelated verses is preposterous.

Christians have a legitimate argument in saying that God is triune. One does not have to look hard to find the evidence for this. The scriptures affirm that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one. Deuteronomy 4:6 serves several purposes in this debate. It shows God's uniqueness and sovereignty. It also leaves open the possibility that God's essence can be shared, which is demonstrated in several instances in the Bible. God's name YHWH is a manifestation of his presence.

Look at Deuteronomy 12:5-6

"But you shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose out of all your tribes to put his name and make his habitation there. There you shall go, and there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution that you present, your vow offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock."

Moses built the tabernacle in the wilderness to house the ark of the covenant, in HIS (YHWH) name. Read the book of kings to get a feel for God's glory that descends upon the habitation of his name.

Let's look at Exodus 23:20-1:

“Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him."

Hmm, let's draw a parallel now, John 5:43 please:

"I have come in my Father’s name and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him."

Blasphemous enough for you yet?


Just as YHWH sent an angel with his presence to watch over his people in Exodus, Jesus comes to fulfill the Holy Law with YHWH's presence. When someone comes in God's name, it can correctly be said that God is with them therefore they are God. That is how Jesus can say that he and the Father are one. Just for some extra "UMPH", i'll list some more of these verses.

"And because he loved your fathers and chose their offspring after them and brought you out of Egypt with his own presence, by his great power" - Deuteronomy 4:37

His presence of course being in the form of the angel he sent with his name. This is an interesting verse because God says he did this, and that his angel did too. The same, but separate.

"By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night." -Exodus 13:21

"Then the angel of God, who had been traveling in front of Israel's army, withdrew and went behind them. The pillar of cloud also moved from in front and stood behind them" -Exodus 14:20

Again, separate but one.

EDIT:

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." - Leviticus 17:11

I don't understand how you could possibly misconstrue the purpose of Yeshua's death. It's literally in black in white.

Yeshua was the fulfillment of the law, through his blood was perfection. He is NOT a priest unto the order of Aaron, animal sacrifices. The Levitical priesthood could only be NEAR perfect. Yeshua is a priest under the order of Melkizedik, but that's a different story.


edit on 29-3-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
you were not a believer actually... and these words carry no weight.


No True Scotsman Fallacy. That's like saying I never used to believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny growing up as a kid.

Your statement is full of ignorance and stupidity.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by SisyphusRide
you were not a believer actually... and these words carry no weight.


No True Scotsman Fallacy. That's like saying I never used to believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny growing up as a kid.

Your statement is full of ignorance and stupidity.


that's not good enough disassemble to engage me... sorry... (where's the icon for "Weak"?)



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


It's irrelevant or not whether or not you feel engaged or not. Your previous comment is fallacious and needed to be put to rest. I don't understand why it's even used as a counter-argument; it makes no sense.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by SisyphusRide
 


It's irrelevant or not whether or not you feel engaged or not. Your previous comment is fallacious and needed to be put to rest. I don't understand why it's even used as a counter-argument; it makes no sense.


I am getting alot worse I guess? I can hardly form your language into a sentence... I don't speak it.

what is that language anyway? I will have to input the data...

I use the universal translator... (powered by quantum light energy)


edit on 30-3-2012 by SisyphusRide because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 



Christians have a legitimate argument in saying that God is triune. One does not have to look hard to find the evidence for this. The scriptures affirm that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one.

I could list several unambiguous statements from God and His prophets and Jesus where they all affirm God is one.
Can you provide just one direct statement from God or His prophets or Jesus where they say God is triune?
You cant, because there are none. Instead, you would list a number of vague verses which supposedly "prove" the trinity or present your interpretation of a certain verse and pass it off as "evidence" of a triune God.

You ignore a direct and clear statement from God Himself that He is one, and look for things involving a triune God elsewhere.





Just as YHWH sent an angel with his presence to watch over his people in Exodus, Jesus comes to fulfill the Holy Law with YHWH's presence. When someone comes in God's name, it can correctly be said that God is with them therefore they are God.


Both the angel and Jesus were only representatives of God. They were given the power by God and could not do anything of their own.
When someone comes in God's name, it means they are representing God.
If God is "with" them, it simply means they are under control or being watched by God. It doesn't mean they are God.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 



"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." - Leviticus 17:11

I don't understand how you could possibly misconstrue the purpose of Yeshua's death. It's literally in black in white.


Leviticus is mostly a rule book of dos and donts. and chapter 17 contains strict regulations on blood...

Read that verse in context...
God was referring to the blood of animals..which was banned from being consumed because it is meant for the animal sin sacrifial rituals.

10And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.
11For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.
12Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood.



You will notice that the verse before and after the one you posted, shows that there is a ban on consuming blood.

Ironically John 6:51-58, where Jesus (symbolically) tells his followers to "drink his blood" is often cited to prove the sacrifice.

On one hand, God banned the drinking of blood...and on the other, Jesus used a metaphor of blood drinking for being saved.

This is the danger of looking for imaginary connections in unrelated verses. Its better if you just stick to the relevant verses.



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 



Christians have a legitimate argument in saying that God is triune. One does not have to look hard to find the evidence for this. The scriptures affirm that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one.

I could list several unambiguous statements from God and His prophets and Jesus where they all affirm God is one.
Can you provide just one direct statement from God or His prophets or Jesus where they say God is triune?
You cant, because there are none. Instead, you would list a number of vague verses which supposedly "prove" the trinity or present your interpretation of a certain verse and pass it off as "evidence" of a triune God.

You ignore a direct and clear statement from God Himself that He is one, and look for things involving a triune God elsewhere.





Just as YHWH sent an angel with his presence to watch over his people in Exodus, Jesus comes to fulfill the Holy Law with YHWH's presence. When someone comes in God's name, it can correctly be said that God is with them therefore they are God.


Both the angel and Jesus were only representatives of God. They were given the power by God and could not do anything of their own.
When someone comes in God's name, it means they are representing God.
If God is "with" them, it simply means they are under control or being watched by God. It doesn't mean they are God.




Okay go ahead and list those few and i'll list the over 30+ quotes and scriptures for the multiplicity of God. YOU are the one clinging to a couple verses to support your conclusion, not me. I gave you examples of how God's name IS his presence. I gave you how BEFORE Yeshua, angels were called God when they came in his name. His being is one, but the ability for him to share his essence has been demonstrated numerous times. You're going to throw out all of that over a technicality? Ambiguity is not a problem in this instance, even somebody with a cursory knowledge of the Bible could go through and extract what I have.

I advise you to take a closer look at Deuteronomy 6:4. Don't think of it as singularity from the human perspective.

edit on 30-3-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 





Leviticus is mostly a rule book of dos and donts.


Leviticus is not a rule book of do's and don'ts, as you so simplistically put it. Leviticus is the book where the rule of the law is given.




You will notice that the verse before and after the one you posted, shows that there is a ban on consuming blood.

Ironically John 6:51-58, where Jesus (symbolically) tells his followers to "drink his blood" is often cited to prove the sacrifice.


There's a ban on drinking blood, which he knows, so he offers up wine... So nobody actually ever drinks blood, and that's still wrong to you?

Yeshua wasn't a Levitical priest anyway, so it doesn't matter. The sacrificial requirements are different under the order of Melkizedik. The first symbolic bread and wine offering by a priest was over 2000 years before Yeshua.

"And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God." - Genesis 14:18

"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he said unto him, Thou art my son , to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchisedec." -Hebrews 5:5-6

I don't know what your garrulous logic is aimed at, if at anything. Maybe you're just stubborn...


edit on 30-3-2012 by CaptainNemo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainNemo
 

I don't understand how you could possibly misconstrue the purpose of Yeshua's death. It's literally in black in white.
Since you are obviously not a Christian, but belong to the anti-christians, I don't see your motivation to get into Christian doctrines, other than to possibly lull them into a state of complacency as you subvert their religion.
What you seem to be doing is relegating Jesus (though you will not even recognize his identity and can't resist substituting in your anti-christ name) to merely a sacrificial animal in subordination to a written manual held by men who determine how God can and can not behave.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join