Misunderstandings about the Holy Scriptures

reply to post by iSomeone




A book that goes directly against itself within its own passages is not a good book by which to base your understanding of the world, or your hope of salvation.


~ Wandering Scribe

iRoyalty
Only men can be proved wrong which just proves the bible is not words from God.

You need to find God on your own terms, not on someone else's just because they wrote a book about it.

Just saying.

edit on 2-3-2014 by iRoyalty because: (no reason given)

There are two books that reveal God. The first is the book of creation. By observing creation we can learn much about him, his fathomless wisdom, his awesome power, his foresight, understanding and knowledge, are all perceived in his creation.

But there are things you cannot learn by looking at creation. That is why the Creator, who loves us, and is the essence of love, has, in his time, inspired humans to write his thoughts down, and he has seen to it that they have been preserved.

So while, you can learn some about God on your own, by reflection and meditation on the world around you. You cannot learn everything you need to know. Of course, we will never ever know all there is to know about him, and even what we do know about him is just but the fringes of his ways, we can get to know him by reading the scriptures he inspired. The fact that they are infallible prove that no mere human was behind the authorship of the divine scriptures of truth, just as they rightly claim:

(1 Thessalonians 2:13) . . ., YOU accepted it, not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God. . .

(2 Peter 1:20, 21) . . .For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.

Wandering Scribe
reply to post by iSomeone

 

A book that goes directly against itself within its own passages is not a good book by which to base your understanding of the world, or your hope of salvation.

~ Wandering Scribe

Agreed. That is another proof that the Bible is not of human origin.

The fact that over 42 different writers, from all walks of life, over a span of more than 2,000 years were able to all write a complete work that is completely harmonious is a strong proof of its divine nature.

Even today, human knowledge changes on a daily basis, and you would not be able to get two people in the same field to write about something and agree completely upon it. Let alone over a span of decades, or centuries. It is an impossibility that it could have been done by human origin over a span of thousands of years.

An no human knowledge has ever disproved anything God has inspired. Rather his words have stood the test of time.

reply to post by iSomeone

Of course, we will never ever know all there is to know about him, and even what we do know about him is just but the fringes of his ways, we can get to know him by reading the scriptures he inspired. The fact that they are infallible prove that no mere human was behind the authorship of the divine scriptures of truth, just as they rightly claim:

"they" do not claim to be infallible...

Nor are the scriptures even close to the word infallible...

That is something you've been taught by a preacher... and its a lie

reply to post by Akragon


Actually you're making quite a few assumptions there that are inaccurate. But that doesn't really surprise me, just teaches me a little about you.

As far as the scriptures claiming to be the infallible word of God, and your assertion that I was taught this by a preacher, but they do not claim that. Here are a few scriptures you might find enlightening:

(2 Timothy 3:16) All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness.


(2 Peter 1:20, 21) . . .For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.

(Deuteronomy 32:4) . . .The Rock, perfect is his activity,. . .

(2 Samuel 23:2) The spirit of Jehovah it was that spoke by me, And his word was upon my tongue.

(Acts 1:16) “Men, brothers, it was necessary for the scripture to be fulfilled, which the holy spirit spoke beforehand by David’s mouth about Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus,

(Acts 28:25) So, because they were at disagreement with one another, they began to depart, while Paul made this one comment: “The holy spirit aptly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to YOUR forefathers,

1 Peter 1:11) They kept on investigating what particular season or what sort of [season] the spirit in them was indicating concerning Christ when it was bearing witness beforehand about the sufferings for Christ and about the glories to follow these.

(Joel 1:1) The word of Jehovah that occurred to Joel the son of Pe·thu′el:

(Obadiah 1) . . .This is what the Sovereign Lord Jehovah has said . . .

(Micah 1:1) 1 The word of Jehovah that occurred to Mi′cah . . .


and so on and so forth.

reply to post by iSomeone


None of which say the scripture is infallible...

Again, you're just regurgitating what you've been taught...

Do a bit of research, you'll find biblical scripture is far from perfect... very flawed in fact...

Try reading for yourself instead of just reiterating thoughts of others on Christian websites

I'll make it even easier for you since I know most Christians are lazy when it comes to finding flaws in the bible

Just watch the video Wandering scribe posted... and look up the references given...

Should prove my point

reply to post by Akragon


You are making more assumptions about me that are inaccurate. But that is okay, I can be patient with you. Why don't you take the time to share with me, one of your proofs that the scriptures are not infallible. One point would suffice it, as you say, one point can prove they are not. I thank you beforehand for doing this.

reply to post by iSomeone


I appreciate your patience...

Did Jesus speak on his way to the cross?

Once you see there are flaws in your book, then you might be able to find the actual flawless part of the book... that being the teaching of Jesus... therein lies the only flawless part of the bible

Akragon
reply to post by iSomeone

 

I appreciate your patience...

Did Jesus speak on his way to the cross?

Once you see there are flaws in your book, then you might be able to find the actual flawless part of the book... that being the teaching of Jesus... therein lies the only flawless part of the bible

I appreciate your reply as well.

This is what the gospel accounts record about that event...

In Matthew there is only a brief mention of Jesus' journey to Golgatha:

(Matthew 27:31, 32) . . .Finally, when they had made fun of him, they took the cloak off and put his outer garments upon him and led him off for impaling. 32 As they were going out they found a native of Cy·re′ne named Simon. This man they impressed into service to lift up his torture stake.


Mark's account says this:

(Mark 15:21, 22) . . .Also, they impressed into service a passerby, a certain Simon of Cy·re′ne, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Ru′fus, that he should lift up his torture stake. 22 So they brought him to the place Gol′go·tha, which means, when translated, Skull Place.


Now finally getting to Luke's account we have this:

(Luke 23:26-31) . . .Now as they led him away, they laid hold of Simon, a certain native of Cy·re′ne, coming from the country, and they placed the torture stake upon him to bear it behind Jesus. 27 But there was following him a great multitude of the people and of women who kept beating themselves in grief and bewailing him. 28 Jesus turned to the women and said: “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for me. On the contrary, weep for yourselves and for YOUR children; 29 because, look! days are coming in which people will say, ‘Happy are the barren women, and the wombs that did not give birth and the breasts that did not nurse!’ 30 Then they will start to say to the mountains, ‘Fall over us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us over!’ 31 Because if they do these things when the tree is moist, what will occur when it is withered?”


Finally the last account of the gospels, John states this:

(John 19:16, 17) . . .Then they took charge of Jesus. 17 And, bearing the torture stake for himself, he went out to the so-called Skull Place, which is called Gol′go·tha in Hebrew;


So to answer your question yes, Jesus did speak on his way to be executed, according to what was recording in Luke's account.

reply to post by iSomeone


Luke's account is a compilation of witnesses he interviewed from his own words...

Yet None of the other three gospels say he spoke a word on the way to the cross...

What was written above his head on the cross?

Mark says this...

26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, The King Of The Jews.

Yet in John we find that "the Jews" said specifically to Pilate....

21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

Then we look to Luke... which you'll find an entirely Inscription... in three languages!

38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.

All three can not be correct.... so which do you prefer?

Akragon
reply to post by iSomeone

 

Luke's account is a compilation of witnesses he interview from his own words...

Yet None of the other three gospels say he spoke a word on the way to the cross...

What was written above his head on the cross?

Mark says this...

26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, The King Of The Jews.

Yet in John we find that "the Jews" said specifically to Pilate....

21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.

Then we look to Luke... which you'll find an entirely Inscription... in three languages!

38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, This Is The King Of The Jews.

All three can not be correct.... so which do you prefer?

Well, scripture quotations would have been preferable, make things quicker to look up.

Your supposition that because the three other accounts don't note what Jesus said means he couldn't said anything is poppycock. The four gospels were written by four different people, while inspired by God, they don't all have to contain the same information. None of the gospels reference Jesus' adolescence and what he did while growing up, except to say that he was a carpenter, and one event in his life when he was a child. Just because they don't dwell on his early life does not mean he did not have one. That logic is not sound, nor does it show there is a discrepancy. Only that one writer added more details about that specific account than the others. Did I really just have to write this? I am beginning to wonder about your capacity to reason on things. Perhaps you shall prove me wrong yet.

Here are the references:

(Mark 15:26) And the inscription of the charge against him was written above, “The King of the Jews.”
(Luke 23:38) There was also an inscription over him: “This is the king of the Jews.”
(John 19:19) Pilate wrote a title also and put it on the torture stake. It was written: “Jesus the Naz·a·rene′ the King of the Jews.”

All three say the same thing. And just because one account refers to the fact that it was written in more than one language, and the other account do not give this detail, does not mean there is a discrepancy.

Rather, what both these examples prove is that the gospels were written by different people, and each from their own perspective, yet they also show a unity, which is in harmony with the claim that God's holy spirit guided their works.

reply to post by iSomeone


SIgh...

Assume what you will of me, I care not... I guess we shall continue

On Jesus final night... He was with a few of his followers...

Did he ask God to "take this cup from me" as three of the gospels say?

OR

Did he say this...

27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

Matthew Mark and Luke, all say that he asks God to spare him, yet in john we find that Jesus knows his mission and accepts it without question...

Which is correct?

Akragon
reply to post by iSomeone

 

SIgh...

Assume what you will of me, I care not... I guess we shall continue

On Jesus final night... He was with a few of his followers...

Did he ask God to "take this cup from me" as three of the gospels say?

OR

Did he say this...

27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.

Matthew Mark and Luke, all say that he asks God to spare him, yet in john we find that Jesus knows his mission and accepts it without question...

Which is correct?

John's account is much more detailed about what Jesus said the night he died. If you have ever taken the time to read it you would understand this. In fact John seems to go into depth into sayings of Jesus the three other gospel writers do not. But again, just because John is more detailed, that does not mean they contradict themselves.

Now the specific account you reference is when Jesus was in the garden of Gethsemane. And he actually prayed a very long time. Matthew recorded that during his first prayer he said this:

(Matthew 26:39) . . .And going a little way forward, he fell upon his face, praying and saying: “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me. Yet, not as I will, but as you will.”

And afterwards he returned to the apostles and saw them sleeping and awakened them and returned to praying.

Do you understand what the word "cup" means, to which he was referring? The "cup" was God's will for him. In fact in John he states this:

(John 18:11) . . .Jesus, however, said to Peter: “Put the sword into [its] sheath. The cup that the Father has given me, should I not by all means drink it?”

Now what I believe you are referencing in John is his prayer to Jehovah that is recorded in John 17. And what a beautiful prayer that is. But it is not out of harmony with his other prayer in Matthew. For if you notice, he asked God to remove the cup from him if he could, but he also stated: Yet, not as I will, but as you will." So Matthew also recorded that he was willing to do his Father's will.

Just because one account added the first prayer, and the other account dealt on his second prayer, and in more detail, does not show a contradiction.

In fact to think otherwise just show a crass lack of study of the scriptures. Almost a cursory glance, or even a willful ignorance of what they are stating.


The fact that Jesus did NOT want to die as a blasphemer and criminal shows how much he cared about his Father's name. It also shows that he was separate form his Father, and it also shows that he was even willing, even though he did not want to, to do it.

That is exactly why the scriptures state that through these things that he suffered Jesus learned obedience to God:

(Hebrews 5:8) . . .Although he was a Son, he learned obedience from the things he suffered.


Still no contradiction.

reply to post by iSomeone


Again... stop with the assumptions of me or what I know... its pointless..

Was Abraham Justified by works or by Faith...

Paul says this...

Romans 4:2 

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.

James... says the opposite

James 2:21 

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?


Who was correct?

Akragon
reply to post by iSomeone

 

Again... stop with the assumptions of me or what I know... its pointless..

Was Abraham Justified by works or by Faith...

Paul says this...

Romans 4:2 

For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.

James... says the opposite

James 2:21 

Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?


Who was correct?

Romans 4:2 states that "if" he was justified by his works, he would have ground for boasting, but not to God. Paul never stated that he was justified. In fact if you read Romans the whole point was to show that the spiritual Jew, or anointed Christian, could not be declared righteous by works of the law.


Now James 2:21-23 states:

(James 2:21-23) . . .Was not Abraham our father declared righteous by works after he had offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 You behold that [his] faith worked along with his works and by [his] works [his] faith was perfected, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says: “Abraham put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness,” and he came to be called “Jehovah’s friend.”


So we see that it was Abraham's faith that was counted to him as righteousness, but it was because he had works to back them up:

(James 2:24) . . .YOU see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone.


Both James and Paul are in harmony. There is no contradiction. One cannot just have faith, without works. Just as James wrote:

(James 2:26) . . .Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.


So what if you claim you have faith in God? If you do not show that you have faith that faith is pointless and is dead.

That is why Jesus stated:

(John 3:16) “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.


Notice, Jesus did not state that everyone that has "faith" would gain everlasting life. He said that everyone "exercising faith" would gain everlasting life. So faith is needed, and only by faith is a person saved, but if that faith does not provide works that show that it is real, then it is dead, and it is pointless.

The faith that Abraham had that was pleasing was displayed in the fact that he was willing to sacrifice his son (although God did not allow him to do so). His works proved that his faith was real in Jehovah.

Still there are no contradictions.

reply to post by iSomeone

Both James and Paul are in harmony

We'll have to agree to disagree on that Paul is not in harmony with anyone but himself...

How did Judas Die?

Did he hang himself according to Matthew?

Or was he...

burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. (according to acts)

double post

Akragon
reply to post by iSomeone

 

Both James and Paul are in harmony

We'll have to agree to disagree on that Paul is not in harmony with anyone but himself...

How did Judas Die?

Did he hang himself according to Matthew?

Or was he...

burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. (according to acts)

I would like to add one more point, than you seem to have totally missed in your scriptures quoted in Romans about works of the law and James. The one in Romans was specifically talking about works of the law, while James was talking about a person putting their faith into practice. They were talking about totally different things. It seems quite apparent that you, or whoever wrote that these contradict each other have not come to this simple and basic understanding. Most likely due to lack of study, or just a cursory glance of these scriptures.


As far as Judas, Matthew 27:5 deals with the mode of Judas* attempted suicide, and Acts 1:18 describes the result of it. Combining the two we are given to understand that Judas hung himself but that the rope broke so that he plunged below and burst open on the rocks below. The topography of Jerusalem makes this possible.

Also this just goes to show that just because one eye-witness does not give a complete account, that does not make that account inaccurate. It also shows that these accounts, while written by different people (knowing that the one ommitted certain information from the other) harmonize with each.

Still, no contradiction.

reply to post by iSomeone

As far as Judas, Matthew 27:5 deals with the mode of Jesus attempted suicide, and Acts 1:18 describes the result of it. Combining the two we are given to understand that Judas hung himself but that the rope broke so that he plunged below and burst open on the rocks below. The topography of Jerusalem makes this possible.

Also this just goes to show that just because one eye-witness does not give a complete account, that does not make that account inaccurate. It also shows that these accounts, while written by different people (knowing that the one ommitted certain information from the other) harmonize with each.

pure speculation... and for the third time STOP with the assumptions of me.... You don't know me, or my beliefs or what I've studied...

Just stop....

On to the next...

Can thieves go to heaven?

Paul says Thieves will have no part in heaven... where as Jesus sad specifically to the thief beside him, ye shall be with me in paradise...

If the bible was truly the word of God, then wouldn't every person who truly wished to understand the bible, be inspired by the holy spirit to come to the same conclusions as all other true believers?

Instead, it seems that all Christians see the bible differently.