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.

 

Is the bible the divine word of god?

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
In the bible the words of Jesus should be the main focus, and they have a deeper meaning than most religionists ascribe to them (no offense to religionists). Most other passages in the bible confuse, cover-up, add meaning ........and are generally not important.

Of course Jesus was just a man, but had the same message as other masters, such as the Buddha, from God, or I prefer the term "creator", as we all KNOW God is not a person that looks like Santa Claus sitting in the clouds, the creator is probably in a form not easily understood by us and certainly has no gender, and using the word "God" people will attach incorrect mental labels (and become attached to those labels - which is ego).

When the Creator said we are created in its image, of course again it did not mean our physical body, but our soul that is in its image.

If you study the words/teachings/actions of Jesus it is hard to fail to see his main point was for us to raise our consciousness, which is only done through ego awareness - ego being attachment to beliefs, ideas, things - to create separateness by making others into enemies and the superficial enhancement of one's own identity - which is contrary to the only Truth of the Universe which is Love in which all things have connectedness and are in fact part of the Creator.

Jesus said "Deny thy self" - he did not mean sacrifice, he meant "Deny thy self-image"

Jesus said "When a man steals your coat give your shirt as well" This was not about charity, but about the idea that letting go of attachments to things or ideas is very powerful and liberating.

Jesus said "Love your enemies", again enemies are ego created, he was saying basically to have no enemies and practice forgiveness, easy if you are aware of your ego, almost impossible if you are not.

Jesus said "don't worry about tomorrow as it will take care of itself" or something like that, the ego lives in the past and the future, if you live in the present and have presence you can begin to be free of ego.

So, teachings in the Bible which emphasize consciousness, and the diminishment of suffering by acceptance, and awareness of the Ego are the core truths, the rest don't really matter - unless you are trying to control the masses through fear, guilt, sin etc.

Of course this is just my opinion, but to me it makes sense, if you have raised your consciousness laws and commandments are not necessary, if you are still unconscious and ego dominated rules and laws will not help.

namaste
edit on 27-12-2013 by PlanetXisHERE because: epiphany




posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Good stuff. Your words make a lot of sense.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   

PlanetXisHERE
In the bible the words of Jesus should be the main focus, and they have a deeper meaning than most religionists ascribe to them (no offense to religionists). Most other passages in the bible confuse, cover-up, add meaning ........and are generally not important.

Of course Jesus was just a man, but had the same message as other masters, such as the Buddha, from God, or I prefer the term "creator", as we all KNOW God is not a person that looks like Santa Claus sitting in the clouds, the creator is probably in a form not easily understood by us and certainly has no gender, and using the word "God" people will attach incorrect mental labels (and become attached to those labels - which is ego).

When the Creator said we are created in its image, of course again it did not mean our physical body, but our soul that is in its image.

If you study the words/teachings/actions of Jesus it is hard to fail to see his main point was for us to raise our consciousness, which is only done through ego awareness - ego being attachment to beliefs, ideas, things - to create separateness by making others into enemies and the superficial enhancement of one's own identity - which is contrary to the only Truth of the Universe which is Love in which all things have connectedness and are in fact part of the Creator.

Jesus said "Deny thy self" - he did not mean sacrifice, he meant "Deny thy self-image"

Jesus said "When a man steals your coat give your shirt as well" This was not about charity, but about the idea that letting go of attachments to things or ideas is very powerful and liberating.

Jesus said "Love your enemies", again enemies are ego created, he was saying basically to have no enemies and practice forgiveness, easy if you are aware of your ego, almost impossible if you are not.

Jesus said "don't worry about tomorrow as it will take care of itself" or something like that, the ego lives in the past and the future, if you live in the present and have presence you can begin to be free of ego.

So, teachings in the Bible which emphasize consciousness, and the diminishment of suffering by acceptance, and awareness of the Ego are the core truths, the rest don't really matter - unless you are trying to control the masses through fear, guilt, sin etc.

Of course this is just my opinion, but to me it makes sense, if you have raised your consciousness laws and commandments are not necessary, if you are still unconscious and ego dominated rules and laws will not help.

namaste
edit on 27-12-2013 by PlanetXisHERE because: epiphany


And yet another differing opinion, thanks for participating.

Just wondering if you guys re interpret every book you read? Like your science books? J/k.

I want to go back now and count the differing opinions from all these posters. And then maybe start a new thread for every paragraph in the bible to see how many interps we can come up with.

To me, this was my main reason for not believing any of this as a child. Cant you believers understand that there is no consensus on what the bible means? Even within individual churches, no one can agree with anyone else on the entirety of the book.

One would think that an all knowing being would include something in his 30,000 different bibles that would sit with everyone the same. Do you think god wants everyone to think differently about him?

Some think its all literal, some think only some of it should be taken literal, some think its all symbolic, and some think you dont even need it to understand god and jesus and everything.

Everyone can say that everyone else is reading it wrong. And who can argue with that. Unless..... Its just a book and it has no basis in reality.

To me that is the only conclusion that makes sense.

What do you have to say about the total lack of consensus? Seriously.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Exactly, my friend.

What you said is how I view it as well and I see you as a major bringer of light! ;-)

Good to see ya in this thread! I haven't seen you in a while.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

MamaJ
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


Exactly, my friend.

What you said is how I view it as well and I see you as a major bringer of light! ;-)

Good to see ya in this thread! I haven't seen you in a while.


Thanks MamaJ - my ego is warmed by your kind words! Yet since I recognize it as ego - it is ego no longer, just old conditioned thought patterns.

You definitely are a bringer of light and love, and you battle without ego - you are very inspirational!

And to the OP, yes there are many interpretations, but which one makes the most sense to your heart? It would be an error to assume just because there are many interpretations that none contain the truths of the Universe. I have listened and chosen the one which calls to me - people must make up their own minds and use their own discernment. However, keep in mind that Love = Truth, and everything else is fear.




edit on 27-12-2013 by PlanetXisHERE because: epiphany

edit on 27-12-2013 by PlanetXisHERE because: epiphany



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


Ya know, why worry about that? Why be concerned about having a consensus.

IF we were all created exactly the same then we would view God exactly the same.

The expressions would be exactly the same. Do you see?




Do you think god wants everyone to think differently about him?



I think there are many ways God expresses himself and by each view point he IS.

I do however believe that our masters of love ( Jesus, Buddha, Etc..) had a type of consensus that we overlook and do not adhere to, as a collective. If we did we would come together, not be divided nor would we be able to be conquered. We would be closer to peace on Earth than ever before.

So, to the ones who think each and every word in the Bible is a literal law, I do not believe that. Would Jesus? lol I don't think so..

For the ones who believe the Bible conveys different meanings via the spirit world, I believe it. Fire and water are not to be taken in a literal sense each and every time it's mentioned. Babylon, Israel, Jerusalem isn't either. That's just for starters. The Bible seems to have certain patterns and ways of interpreting. The one interpreting though is in question. For this reason I do not go to church. Why do I want someone else's view point and not trust my own?

Knowing when to use which layer to a verse is called deciphering and not all of us have this gift.

Each of us are on a journey here on Earth for different reasons and this journey may not be so much about finding Jesus than it is to work out some other specific karma. We are not all here after the same goal. We have different goals that need to be met.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by PlanetXisHERE
 


You are so sweet! We have definitely grown together, I can see this and hope you see growth in me as well.



However, keep in mind that Love = Truth, and everything else is fear.


So true!

Funny thing I do to overcome fear.... when someone says to me to stop being scared I tell them it's not that I am scared, just aware. Even jokingly when someone says I am in fear I want to make sure they know as well as assure myself that it's not calling on fear to come in, but awareness.

Even your thoughts create and bring "stuff" into your life, or so it seems that way for me. When this happens I try to either embrace said fear , love it, and then let it go, or not allow it by replacing the word (aware) or thoughts.

Does this make sense to anyone? ha!

Love is Truth .....and the Truth sets us free of bondage and burdens.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Woodcarver
I personally dont believe in any gods and i see the bible as a collection of ancient novels that were written by primitive people who genuinly believed what they wrote.


I agree with you there, except that I do believe in "God" (not in the usual Christian sense though)



Who here thinks that every word in the bible is the divinely inspired words of god? Old and new testament.


Not every word. While my system of belief includes the idea of "divine inspiration", it is clear from what I have read of the bible (quite a bit) that not every word came straight from God's mouth to the prophets mind.

The contradictions in doctrine within and between the OId and New testament suggest that God must have changed his mind at some point or other.

Example: one of the chief commandments is "you shall not kill", however in several parts of the Bible there are exceptions on when it is okay to kill someone as punishment for various sins. Elsewhere in the Bible, it is stated that it is not man's place to judge and punish sins and that one must forgive others for their transgressions. So...what is correct? Which of these statements is inspired by God?

The Bible hands you the key to discerning which passages are divinely inspired, and which are not:

Thessalonians 5:21-22 "Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil."

Therefore if you are reading a passage of the Bible and you find that what it is saying goes against your sense of morality, then that is not something that you should do or condone.

(example: in Numbers 31, Moses orders his people to go to war against the Midianites, and once the battle had been won he orders his men to "Kill all the boys and kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who as never slept with a man." I find this repulsive and immoral, but supposedly God commanded it. To me this is a clear case of Moses using his religious influence to push a militaristic agenda.)



Do you think god and jesus are one and the same?


Not precisely. I do believe Jesus was a man who was truly conscious of his divine essence.



Do you think the hundreds of commandments given to the jewish people in the old testament are still relevant to modern christians?


Hell no. Many of those were cultural laws to govern the Jewish people, most likely dreamed up by the Jewish priesthood and thus full of their own bias and prejudice.

(examples: Don't shave your beard, don't wear clothing made of more than one type of fabric, don't put any markings on your skin...these are all rules designed to maintain a sort of "cultural uniform", written in a time when there were many nomadic tribes of Israel. They allowed the Israelites to discern friend from foe, in a manner similar to modern gangs wearing specific colors.)



If you dont believe that every word in the bible is divine revelation, Then how can you tell which words are divine, and which are to be seen as metaphor, or symbolic?


Avoid "cherry picking", if you're going to quote the bible, make sure you understand the context of the quote. You could try to justify any sort of evildoing by grabbing a phrase and saying "well it's in the bible which is divine word so it must be okay" but if you actually READ the WHOLE CHAPTER you might just find that the line you picked out was precisely the evil that it was trying to warn you against.



So is every interpretation correct? Most would say no. So then does it come down to individual interpretations? Which means that none of it can be trusted because everyone interprets these words differently. So you have to look at it skeptically. Thats when you notice things like donkeys talking, and thousands of dead rising from their graves, people walking on water, changing one substance into another, so on and so on, until you realise that none of it is based in reality and people were just writing down what they thought was the truth.


You essentially answered your own question. Much of what is written is based on the author's own perspective. So you can judge for yourself whether you agree with their perspective or not.



How do you rationalise all the inconsistancies?


The Bible was not written all at once by one hand, but by many hands over hundreds of years. It is a compilation, as you said before, and is filled with the personal bias of the writers, and the cultural bias of the time period in which it was written.



posted on Dec, 27 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Chamberf=6
The OP's title question will only depend on an individual's opinion and no side will convince the other that they are right or wrong.

So this thread is an exercise in futility.


Aren't they all?
Ever seen one that wasn't, please point me to it.p



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 12:14 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



is there ANY scholarly research or historian's studies that you take seriously?


By "scholarly research" if you mean an opposing view, I've come across plenty of it. It remains just that, an opposing view. But I know enough of this subject to make my case. You want to discuss the actual words of scripture, on your own , go right ahead.

Posting links to sources echoing your P.O.V is game that 2 people can play. I guess I could google "scholarly research" showing that hell is literal...and go "Look, evidence!". Would that convince you?



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



By "scholarly research" if you mean an opposing view, I've come across plenty of it.

No, that's not what I meant. I meant theological intensive study based on linguistics, historical documentation followed over millennia, and contradictory EVIDENCE.


It remains just that, an opposing view. But I know enough of this subject to make my case.

Well, you have not "made your case", in my opinion. Plus, you never have answered where you got your "knowledge" of this subject, ever, though I've repeatedly asked you. You just keep claiming it as if it's indisputed truth. And it isn't.

I and others have given you scholars and expert theologians who say otherwise, but all you do is use ONE version of a scripture. One that has been shown to be inaccurate in many ways; combined with external sources delineating the process by which the Myth of Hell infiltrated the common man's thinking, from LONG BEFORE the Bible was 'canonized' 300 years after Jesus's supposed demise.

Now, once again, sk0rpion, what's it to you if Hell is a Myth? Is it that you want others to wind up there? That you'll be sorely disappointed if they don't? That's just sadistic.

And it is the ONLY reason I can imagine for it aside from deeply-entrenched, erroneous, traumatic childhood indoctrination and overwhelming FEAR (which is what it was meant to do to begin with).



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   
if the current bible was the true divine word of God it would be locked up and hidden from the masses.

Knowledge is power
Power corrupts
Absolute power corrupts absolutely



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


It's not even the word!
Linux is the word..lol



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
I believe God and Jesus are from same source. I love the aspect of "Divine" , im evangelic lutherian and the religion part of it has come very private thing to me in recent years. I always like to say i believe in beginning and the end. Alpha and Omega



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



Is it that you want others to wind up there? That you'll be sorely disappointed if they don't? That's just sadistic.

I believe I was trying to show that the premise of a literal hell is grounded in the Biblical religion.
Maybe you don't want it to be true for whatever reason, but when discussing subjects pertaining to religion, faith and theology, like "hell", its best to argue from scripture, as opposed to personal philosophies.



And it is the ONLY reason I can imagine for it aside from deeply-entrenched, erroneous, traumatic childhood indoctrination and overwhelming FEAR (which is what it was meant to do to begin with).

You probably imagine that everybody who believes in hell underwent "erroneous, traumatic childhood indoctrination". Like as if religious adults are incapabe of picking up scriptures and concluding that hell is literal.




Well, you have not "made your case",

I have presented my case in the light of scripture. Refute me with scripture.
Merely copy pasting material from other websites and saying "scholarship" doesn't cut it.



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Haven't you heard?

The bird is the word.

Ba ba ba bird bird bird...



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by sk0rpi0n
 



I have presented my case in the light of scripture. Refute me with scripture.
Merely copy pasting material from other websites and saying "scholarship" doesn't cut it.

I'm not interested in "sola scriptura", and I have shown you scriptural references in other people's arguments. The links I provided over the last couple of days INCLUDE SCRIPTURE.

As for telling me that if I'm not going to use "scripture" to discuss Religion, Faith, and Theology, my opinions are irrelevant -- well, apparently in terms of attempting to establish conversation with you, that is true.

It in no way negates my ability to engage in discourse and thought on the subject. You are using ONE VERSION of scripture, and ONE INTERPRETATION OF IT, and ignoring ALL of the other versions. Now I understand that. So, we are done, then.

It's about interpretation, sk0rp. Mine is not literal, and engages in common sense and historical knowledge not included in scripture. That's all there is to it. And yes, if any child anywhere is being frightened into submission by adults in positions of authority via threats of hellfire, it remains a battle, and I will never stop fighting.

As for adults picking up scripture and taking it at face value and literally ONLY, I find that the majority do not look further than their first glance, or what their first "teacher" tells them. That's just laziness or lack of intelligence.

Certainly not everyone is able to think philosophically. A well established fact. Therefore, in order to keep them under control, manipulation using fear of 'authority' and 'punishment' is the easiest way; after all, you're dealing with people who think like little children, regardless of their chronological age.

I use critical thinking.

edit on 12/28/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   


Text If jesus and god are the same entity then it would make sense that you could attribute the old testament to jesus.
reply to post by Woodcarver
 


Lots of arguments on that. Jeremiah 31:31 says that there will be a new covenant given to Israel and Judah. Then in Hebrews 8:8,13 it is verified by this author that Jeremiah is right. This same author in Hebrews 12:24 then says that Jesus is the mediator of this new covenant. I assume by this inference that Jesus was given the authority of fulfilling the law (covenant) of Moses with a new covenant (Hebrews 8:13).

Then we must realize that this new covenant was to be given to the two nations of Israel and Judah after their separation as one nation. This is where the argument really gets heated. The Christian Jews claim this as their heritage while the Gentile Christians also claim this as their heritage. Then we can read in 1st Corinthians 12:13 that both Jews and Gentiles are regarded by God as one body of His people.

But then this is not accepted by all of the Christian denominations. In fact the infighting for power and wealth has snowballed into a fist fight among almost all of the Hundreds of Christian denominations. Some will not even accept Paul as an Apostle or his writings as from God. The Christians are eating themselves and need no help from the atheists. In fact I have actually heard Christian Jew as well as Christian Gentile bashing from some Christian organizations.

As you may realize that this is not just a matter of OT and NT Gods but entails a new culture which has been born into this world. This new culture embraces their own concept of afterlife which shuts down the bible culture which is dying very rapidly.

Now as far as Jesus and God being the same entity. That is also a great argument among the bible readers.
When Jesus died He is recorded in John 20:17 "Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." If Jesus and God were the same entity then we really have a problem explaining why Jesus prayed to Himself.

There are many divisions of this rendition among many Christian denominations. I was taught that Jesus was the celestial image of the spirit God and known as "The Word" in the celestial realm. As He became flesh He then was known as the man Jesus. While in the flesh of man He was divested of all celestial attributes and lived as a man by faith and prayer. As He was killed, He resurrected back to His celestial estate as "The Word of God." According to Revelation 19:13, as He returns to this earth, He returns as the celestial "Word of God." And so the arguments go on and on and on .



posted on Dec, 28 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Actually, research John Allegro's works, he was an expert in the meaning of words and development of languages that evolve over time, but retain some root identity. He was one of the 25 member team to decipher the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the only member not employed and controlled by the Catholic Church. After 15 years with the team not releasing their work on the Scrolls, he broke with them and published very contraversal books for which he was vilified. He wrote about the Essences who lived in Quaram, very near Nazareth (as in Jesus of Nathareth) Judea, in years before Christ up to the Roman invasion and annililation of 66 AD.

It is likely that Jesus was an Essene "Teacher of Rightousness" (an Essene leader) and the Essenes referred to themselves as the "Sons of God". See en.wikipedia.org... ... "the Essenes ritually immersed in water every morning, ate together after prayer, devoted themselves to charity and benevolence, forbade the expression of anger, studied the books of the elders, preserved secrets, and were very mindful of the names of the angels kept in their sacred writings."

OK return to topic-

According to Allegro, many Biblical languages have many words traceable to Summarian culture of 3-4,000 BC, who developed the first written language we know of (slightly predating Egypt and Chinese?). So the religion of Summaria was fertility based since agriculture was new and it allowed for larger cities and settlements and diversity and work specialization,but needed rain. Hence the "church" priests had the duty of seeing that good weather produced adequate crops. Now here is the topic point- they believed thunder was the "Word of God" and that rain was his semen and that it produced plant fertility and growth. Hence the often used phrase in the bible "the Word of God" is related to that belief that thunder was God's voice and not just to actual written stories that men wrote down supposedly under God's influence. Remember, the New Testament was not penned by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John but are verbal storied written down 50-100 year later attributed to them. Also it was Constantine who created the New Testament 300 years after Christ to create the Holy Roman Empire for political reasons, and they didn't want books and stories included that supported woman's authority or didn't support the need for a Pope or King. One last tidbit- it was the Summarians, according to allegro, who first used the central ritual of the Christian Church- Communion. They believed they ate the Son of God, which was for the forgiveness of sins and that God (or Gods) allowed the sacrifice of his (their) son for the well being of mankind. The Essenses may have known this by then ancient knowledge, and as monks, preserved and maybe practiced it. So the central story of the death and resurrection of the Son of God for the forgiveness of sins is Summarian, and 3,000 years older than the New Testament, than and the Communion ritual and references to the Word of God have a much longer history. Of course, this assumed Allegro was correct and that the Church repressed this history. Also ignore Zecharia Sitchin's translations of Summarian storys, he has been discredited as not very accurate.
edit on 28-12-2013 by retsdeeps1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join