Oh, I'm still going to be a teacher, Toppy, just not going to be a principal anymore.
Understanding Christianity - Questions for Christians
- Thread starter Stelakh
- Start date
Oh, I'm still going to be a teacher, Toppy, just not going to be a principal anymore.
Oh, I'm still going to be a teacher, Toppy, just not going to be a principal anymore.
God help us!
You are vastly oversimplifying.
The early church did more than that, however. What they did was take the bits THEY didn't like, mistranslate (and it's questionable whether or not that was on purpose) some things that became more in line with what the church wanted due to the mistranslation, and then threw out the bible as the "Word of God."
The problem is that when humans get involved in choosing what is and what isn't "truth" based on nothing but their own opinions, you lose not just bits of the truth but all of it, because what you're left with is either an intentional, bald-faced lie, or a lie of omission.
Alter2Ego
Verified User
Stelakh:
The Judeo-Christian Bible provides the history of mankind, starting from the creation of the first humans, Adam and Eve, and their subsequent rebellion against God. So why are you surprised that it provides information about mankind's wrongdoings within its pages? Surely you want the historical facts, as opposed to sugar-coating.
Alter2Ego
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
Alter2Ego
Verified User
Stelakh:
To answer your question, bolded in red, yes, the Bible should be followed in full--meaning the portions that apply to Christians.
As you stated (and others at various websites have made an issue of the same thing), some books of the Bible were apparently removed by the Christianized Romans when they adopted Christianity as the state religion. However, one fact seems to escape you, as it has many, and that is that the remaining 66 books contain sufficient information in order for honest-hearted persons to realize that the instructions from Almighty God Jehovah remain intact--despite any books that were discarded. The reason for that is this: The instructions from the Almighty are interwoven into all of the Bible books, as opposed to being contained in only a few of the Bible books. So despite the interference by the Christianized Romans--which Jehovah tolerated--it was impossible for them to change the message and instructions from God that is contained in the Bible as a whole.
"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right." (2 Timothy 3:16 -- New Living Translation)
I will respond to your remaining questions in future posts.
Alter2Ego
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." ~ Psalms 83:18
Since this topic has been resurrected (pun intended), why don't we start with the absolute simplest of things to deal with in your initial comment?
First and foremost, right out of the gate, you say that the bible should be followed in full but in the same sentence say "...meaning the portions that apply to Christians." If that is the case then you are not following the bible in full and in fact are stating categorically that you favor cherry-picking.
The bible is full of self-contradiction, with books not agreeing with each other (John even contradicts HIMSELF in his own gospel). All of the gospels try desperately to fit the Messianic story into the Old Testament mold, and they all fail rather miserably. But in attempting to do so, they tell us plainly: "The Old Testament matters." If it didn't, they wouldn't have (or needed to have) used such literary gymnastics in an attempt to make Just the square peg fit into the Messiah round hole.
But even laying that aside, how can you say that all of the books of the bible - including those that were discarded by the early Church because they did not support the Church's position - are less important than the whole? If we are talking about the "word of god", here, is it not vital and important that we discuss the whole of the thing?
Would god, in fact, have given his word in books that were unimportant or irrelevant? Would he have bothered to give instruction if it was okay to simply discard those parts of his word that we didn't like?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
is that according to the interpretation of Stelakh or the interpretation of Christianity?.....
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
if they were rejected by those who established the canon of the Bible then said books were never books of the Bible......
Do you have a link w/ citations @ where those can be found
The Messiah must:
Must be a direct male descendent of Kind David (I Chronicles 17:11, Psalm 89:29-38, Jeremiah 33:17, II Samuel 7:12-16), AND King Solomon (I Chronicles 22:10, II Chronicles 7:18).
(Before anyone starts on Joseph passing on the descent of David and Solomon, yeahNO. According to Matthew (1:11), Joseph was descended from Jeconiah, so Joseph was subject to Jeconiah's curse that none of his descendants could ever sit on the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30. Also, heredity through the tribe does NOT follow any adoption.)
Had to gather the Hebrew people from exile and return them to Israel. (Isaiah 27:12-13, Isaiah 11:12).
Had to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. (Micah 4:1)
Had to bring about world peace. (Isaiah 2:4, 11:6, Micah 4:3)
Had to make the ENTIRE world acknowledge ONE god. (Isaiah 11:9, Isaiah 40:5, Zephaniah 3:9)
Had to restore the religious court system of Israel and establish Jewish law as the law of the land. (Jeremiah 33:15)
Nowhere in the Jewish bible is there any reference to a "second coming."
The "holy trinity" is, in Judaism, considered to be a form of idolotry.
Go and read Ezekiel, 37:24-28.
In fact, go and read the Old Testament.
There's rather a great deal more than I have added to this singular post, or care to take the time to add when you can read it for yourself.
It's according to the gospel of John, if you read it.
You'd know that, being a biblical scholar, though, of course.
Are you being naive or disingenuous?
Interesting, I looked up everyone & I don't really see the contradiction..
Many seem to refer to the last days, which supposedly we have been in for a long time.. Additionally many of those things are suppose to occur upon His return??
As to the Trinity not being in the Bible, the word is not but the concept is as exampled in John 1:1... Personally I think if you believe in a being that created the universe, from the stars etc to the protons, we have no words to describe something like that now, moreless thousands of years ago..
Isn't he correct though?? Some of those books were dismissed, as example the Gnostic references while others are supposedly good for edification etc, just not up to the level of "canonization"...
I would argue that no, he's not correct.
Since "the bible" is supposed to be the "word of god," and the books were compiled by humans who had their own agenda and chose what books to include so that the completed work will fall with high bias on their side.
Humans decided what the "word of god", even though there was rather a great deal more "word of god" than they included.
Maybe that is where the faith part comes in??
I mean if you believe God created the universe & all that, is this that difficult to pull off??
Interesting, I looked up everyone & I don't really see the contradiction..
Many seem to refer to the last days, which supposedly we have been in for a long time.. Additionally many of those things are suppose to occur upon His return??
As to the Trinity not being in the Bible, the word is not but the concept is as exampled in John 1:1... Personally I think if you believe in a being that created the universe, from the stars etc to the protons, we have no words to describe something like that now, moreless thousands of years ago..
You asked me for references regarding Jesus not being the Messiah. I provided some.
One thing it's important to remember is that everything the Messiah was to accomplish was to be done the first time around. There is no "second coming" in Messianic Prophesy, which is another reason Jesus wasn't the Messiah.
I also didn't say the Trinity wasn't in the bible. It's in the New Testament. What I said was that the idea of the "holy trinity" is considered as idolotry, which is one of the three sins one should be willing to give up one's life before committing.
Either it's all "god's word" or none of it is "god's word."
How can we pick and choose between what is and what is not god's word?
Is there anything or anyone preventing you from reading & believing those other books??
There are several billion ppl on the planet & you would be hard pressed to get two or three of them to agree on much...