NEEDED: everyones theories, beliefs, facts on the bible...post here

reply to post by time4chg07


Wow, I have the same story as you, I grew up learning the bible, and I used tjo know it like the back of my hand, and now I am beginning to have questions. About the Old Testament, my honest opinion is that if the Catholic church hadn't left it in the Bible, there would be too many questions about the New Testament. For example, you know when Jesus said 'Even Solomon in all his wisdom isn't adorned as much as a little tulip' well readers would say "Who's Solomon?"

About homosexuality, I think it's clear if you look at it from a Bibilical perspective that homosexuality is wrong, but you see at the time when the Bible was being assembled by the Catholic church, it was a popular thing to be gay, that's whay priests are gay. All that to say, did you ever wonder why it never mentions the disciples' wives? Well, the Catholic church cut that part out so it would give the priests an excuse to be gay. I personally belive the disciples were married, because all of those guys were married (i.e. Abraham, Isaac, David, etc.) To be honest with you, to study Biblical history, you have to study EARLY Roman Catholic history, and how they left just the bare minimum scriptures in the Bible to get by. Real quick, another example is the word Lord that we use for Jesus, well that comes from King James and the whole peasant system where you had Lords and Knights and so on and so forth. King James therefore starting using Lord for Jesus. As a matter of fact (and I can go all day by the way) the way we say Jesus is paganistic because it has the root word 'Zeus' which is a Greek god. And then the word Christ in Greek means like a little god that you pray to paganly. The greeks have little Christos's that they pray to. Often those Christo's are little figureens in the form of animals or statues.

Originally posted by yahn goodey
reply to post by assassini

 

the organized religions you were stuck with are fakes and there is no point in trying to show a sceptic anything---when you have suffered enough to get interested in keeping G-Ds laws then They might get interested in opening your mind to a little more truth ----in the meantime keep on fooling yourself that to covet what belongs to someone else does not break one of the 10 commandments---exodus 20:17-----you want something you like that your neighbours have?---get a job that pays enough for you to buy one of your own. the idea is ----dont steal your neighbours property ---buy your own.

I am not stuck with any organized religion. I am not skeptical about the existance of God at all. Why does one have to "suffer" to get intrested in following God's laws? To covet is to desire not steal. The 8th (7th for Roman Catholics) commandment covers stealing quite well. I do covet all the time and with those desires I save up money that i make at my job and buy those things. I didn't steal my montero or my time share in Colorado. I did however have a friend with a montero. I test drove it and desired it, so i bought one for myself. The time share was puchased after spending a week in Lake Tahoe at my grandmother's. I wanted one too, but I liked Colorado, so that is where I got it.

Originally posted by time4chg07
Well see, thats the same for me...we dont follow the rules about cutting your hair and sacrifices but what of homosexuals...people love to pull out leviticus for that.

anymore links or ideas on the bible are welcome.

In the middle ages, it was considered law. For some reason, the Church modernizes, but forgets to modernize the bible along with it. It hasn't changed since Roman days.

I think Jesus Christ is a composit of several religions and saviors. The bible was written at the order of Constaintene around 235 A.D. At that time Rome was full of different gods. one of them was Krishna from India. Krishna and Christ have the same root word meaning "Light." Then there were the worshipers of the Sun. That was changed to the "son" of God. In other words, the bible as we know it was written to be the One world religion which is what the word Catholic stands for. You will learn all of this during your search. I just want to say I believe firmly in God and Christ. But as a Hindu I also accept Krishna. My true gurus are Babaji and Yogananda.

I was raised in a christian home with christian values. But even as a child and even more so now as an adult I know that the bible as we see it today is not the complete bible. There is more than what we are seeing that makes up the bible. Now who has it and why we do not have it is a question unto itself. But I know this. The King James Version is not the complete bible. Which leads to the ultimate question. How can you say the Bible is the book of books when it's not even a complete book?

Originally posted by mek12
I was raised in a christian home with christian values. But even as a child and even more so now as an adult I know that the bible as we see it today is not the complete bible. There is more than what we are seeing that makes up the bible. Now who has it and why we do not have it is a question unto itself. But I know this. The King James Version is not the complete bible. Which leads to the ultimate question. How can you say the Bible is the book of books when it's not even a complete book?

There are many many many texts that were "inspired by God" that were not allowed to be bound into the Bible as we know it. Many of them were had things written that went against what the leaders of that time supported. The religious leaders of that time voted what books would be included in "The Bible".

Recently many of these lost books have been found by archaeologists. Some have been translated, some have not. Some are incomplete due to them deteriorating from time/weather, etc

The History Channel has had some EXCELLENT shows on these lost texts.

In my opinion, these lost texts are JUST as relevant as the bound Bible we know today.

You should do some research on how the Bible came about. And try and see some of these shows the History Channel produced! Quite interesting!

As per usual there will be 1000 replies to this thread before it gets done with both sides taking their usual positions on the subject.

But I will only add this - when your friend comes up to you and tells you they hit a moose, or went fishing, or dated a girlfriend - you would be inclined to believe them. Not because they have a dead moose in their truck, or a girlfriend in the passenger seat, but because you trust human nature enough that they are simply speaking from their own context of knowledge truthfully as they feel they have experienced it.

If people did not have this basic trust society would cease to function.

When you go over to www.ndef.org you can read a plethora of NDE (Near Death Experiences) - I am Christian and I do not understand it all, and I myself have had NDE's, and it was a amazing experience. Irregardless the usual debunkers are going to spout that life after death does not exist and all the other assinine arguments, and simply not realize that reams of people (including all the testimonials down at ndef.org) are simply witnesses to the experience. Something other dimensionally does *NOT* have to obey the laws of physics...

In a nutshell I'm putting my faith in the Lord, because that is who I saw in my NDE, and I am making no qualms about it.

First of all, I can certainly understand questioning (to put it very mildly - but I should also warn you that philological (or even philosophic) research about the origins of a text will most certainly not provide you with any kind of satisfactory long-term answer (not least because there are no "conclusive" data about any such text, regardless of what some might tell you).

More to the point - and this is in no way intended to be a criticism of you personally, but only of those who taught you: you may have read the Bible a lot - but you haven't read it in depth.

Being very, very late where I am, I'd like to offer just a few very brief answers to some of your questions.

"Womans oppression?"

Historic considerations (VITAL for any societal research) apart, it is a non-issue in the New Testament. But it actually goes much further than that: not only is any kind of "oppression" of women missing from the NT - it is actually (and, of course, demonstrably) in direct and irreducible opposition to Christ's teachings.

For more on that see the passage where Paul explicitly interprets Christ's message: "Faith in Christ Jesus is what makes each of you equal with each other, whether you are a Jew or a Greek, a slave or a free person, a man or a woman". It doesn't get any more explicit than that. Those who prefer to forget this and several other passages (their clarity is rather more relevant than their number, isn't it?) and point out that Paul "forbade" women to preach in the church (and personally I think he made a great mistake at this point, BTW) are clearly unfamiliar with the historic and religious (Judaic) precepts at the time - and no history (not even "sacred" history) happens in a vacuum.

And that, BTW, is precisely why Christ's teachings and sermons (the one on the mountain, most especially) are so revolutionary. They go against every teaching, every social conviction or convention of the era - and beyond. They were a message of absolute personal liberation (through love, no less). Not only they WERE mind-bogglingly revolutionary - judging by the state of the world, they still are.


"Murder, Killing for faith?"

Murder or killing of ANY kind, let alone for faith, is so contrary to Christ's teachings that it's absurd to even think about it. Anyone who kills anyone - except, perhaps, in self-defence - cannot consider himself or herself to be a Christian, no matter who they are.


"Homosexuality?"

Again, it's a non-issue. I don't think anyone at that time - or, let's be frank, at any time, up until 20 or so years ago - would have been thrilled about it. But the fact is there is no mention, direct or indirect, of it in the NT.

All of the above should answer by itself the most essential of your questions - why is the NT more relevant to Christians. It's because its message - Christ's message - is an essential "upgrade" of the Old Testament. And - this is very important - not only from our "historical" perspective, but from THEIR (Christ's and his disciples') perspective. They defied the established "Old Law" in its most pivotal civilisational points: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" became "turn the other cheek" (and stop the cycle of violence). There were no excuses left for stoning adulterous women, or even "just" slandering anyone, or withholding forgiveness for any reason.

In theology, the OT is called the "sub legem" ("under the Law") and the "ante gratiam" era (the "era before Grace"). The NT is called the "sub gratiam" era - the "era of Grace".

I am not citing this to demonstrate my erudition. I am citing it because it is directly relevant to your question, namely: why should WE abide by the vengeful and enslaving precepts of the Old Testament, if Christ was, according to the Bible, sent precisely to supersede them? That WAS his "mission", after all. And THAT is why he was crucified.

(And here, it seems, endeth the space available to me at this point...

)



[edit on 3-11-2007 by Vanitas]

Originally posted by maryjenkins
Krishna and Christ have the same root word meaning "Light."

Very true. But that's irrelevant in this context, since "Christ" was not Jesus' name or surname. It's an expression that entered the English language via the Greek, where CHRISTOS means simply the "crowned (by divinity) one".
It is doubtful, although not impossible, that HE ever heard it himself.





[edit on 3-11-2007 by Vanitas]

reply to post by ullnevernoe


That is not even the correct quote - Even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed as one of these - It was the sparrow.

I think....

I know the bible well, and have massive questions about it...

I just came up with this metaphor since they are pretty much they only way to really make a point about God. It pretty much sums up everything. Hopefully it makes sense, because I don‘t really know how else to say it.


Religion is oxygen. Science is hydrogen. They are both real, but by themselves, we can only make fire.

Right now we live off of fire. Throughout documented history we have lived off of fire. Civilization as we know it IS the fire, made up of smaller flames.

But fire is unstable and consuming by nature and eventually if it wins, all it can do is burn out. It is not self sustaining, but self destructive. Hence the end times in every religion, and the atomic bomb. Some flames burn in less obvious ways, but we all burn and/or get burned. It is what we know, it is our civilizations.

Fire by nature can only be a temporary way of living, since it burns out. The rise and fall of Nations and Empires and Religions. The rise and fall of man, Armageddon.

In order to not burn out we would have to become water, and extinguish all the flames. Water would be a natural joining of Religion and Sciences. Just like physics. Where we stop feeding our fire for mere survival and become something more consistent and self sustaining.

Water cannot be extinguished. It can be gathered until it breaks free or detoured, but not extinguished. Water can be broken back down into its separate parts to start flames again, but the body of water will remain there to extinguish them if we know to use it.

Fire feeds off of life until it burns out or is extinguished, where as water creates life and never dies. Only water can extinguish the flames before they burn out in an eventual Armageddon. Water is where you will find heaven, an everlasting utopia and creator of life.

Science becomes evil without the standing morals of Religion. Religion becomes ignorant without the growing knowledge of science. Right now they act as competing flames, burning our world. Water is the only thing that can stop them from burning out. Extinguishing their flames while creating unity and healing the burns. If we all believe the end is inevitable, then it truly is.


[edit on 3-11-2007 by captainplanet]

Originally posted by XR500Final

When you go over to www.ndef.org you can read a plethora of NDE (Near Death Experiences) -

Deer and Elk Farming In New England ??!



That's where your link led me to.
(Don't worry, I am still reeling from laughter - and that's always a good thing! )

I have my own unique experience in Religion and Christianity.

It surprises me that so many have somewhat to say about it, but have little proof. They have some knowledge, but have no experience in handling the evidences of faith.

I do not know of anyone else whom the Bible speaks of specifically other than myself. There is supposed to be someone who wears the shoes of Elijah in the last days, but I am not sure who that is.

Someone posted about how prophecies are so vague and not more direct, too cryptic and not explaining enough.

I would suggest that prophecy is not intended to reveal future events or to be understood very much before such said events actually occur.

The Bible is the only source from which to test any truth by, and all passages that are in reference to any topic, need to be included in assessing what is truth.

Unfortunately too many pick and choose what they can use to explain or prove their position. Thus the reason for so many different beliefs.

But the evidences as I see them demonstrate that prophecy is very accurate, for such prophecies that have already been fulfilled. History and fulfilled prophecy must agree. However, for those prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled, there have been many explanations given. This leads to far too much speculation. It is best to work from what is known to better understand what is not known.

I remember reading Revelation 17:9 & 10 and wondered how anyone could know what it meant. A friend of mine whom I went to school with, and is now a pastor, has expressed this same wonderment about that verse. After many years, I have come to understand it. And now it is simple, very simple, yet this is still confusing to most.

The problem is that people keep trying to interpret the meaning of what are the 7 mountains, when they have not yet defined what the 7 heads are first. And even then, it is necessary to define what or who is the beast.
If the beast is improperly identified, then so also will its heads be misidentified. Some passages are defined by other passages. Daniel's dream that he shared with the King of Babylon, gave the prophecy and later gave the fulfillment. This sets up a pattern of how prophecies are interpreted. The rules have never changed.

There are two such entities in Scripture that have seven heads and ten horns. One is the Dragon and the other is the Beast. They are not the same. One has an extra horn after its ten, and the other has an extra head after its seven. In all examples of beasts in prophecy, its head(s) are always the leaders of the kingdoms that the respective beasts represents. But many have falsely interpreted "mountains" to be kingdoms and not the leaders or kings of the beast. The term mountains in Rev 17:9 is a descriptive form of the heads, and follows that by saying that they are also "kings". "Waters" is also interpreted in different places as different things. Water is not always the same thing in Scripture.

But no matter how much people wish to know about some things, they will not know nor anyone else, until God allows someone to understand it. This is particularly true of unfulfilled prophecy, but as for all other things, all that has been revealed are for us and our children to know already. This comprises most of what is necessary to receive Christ in our lives and be among the saved.

Originally posted by time4chg07
The bible says that women are not to speak in church and if they have questions to wait and ask the men at home and they are to be silent most of the time...which resembles islam in a way.

It "resembles" Islam - which originated in the 7th century, BTW - because it comes from the same cultural and even ethnic - i.e. Semitic - background. (Let's not forget that Arabs - which by no means equals "Muslims" - are Semites, too.)

As for the quotes on women, I addressed the essence of this question in my first reply (the really long one, remember? ;-)).

I would only like to add this (and being devoid of a judgmental view of history, I am mentioning this exclusively in light of your question, because it is very relevant): in orthodox Judaic communities women were not - and ARE not - supposed to read the Torah OR to teach it.

The latter part should make it clear where Paul was coming from.

(I still think he grossly misinterpreted Christ's message in this particular instance, of course. OR... perhaps Paul preferred to proceed slowly. The teachings themselves were revolutionary enough; an overnight overthrowing of the ancient predominant role of the man as the sole dispenser of God's teachings would have been not only imprudent, but humanly impossible.)

Then again, the essence of the message does come through loud and clear in the other instances - the ones that I mentioned in the first post.

reply to post by addvantage666


They could update practices and teachings to bring it into the 21st century without destroying the source material. We don’t have to throw away the bible, just its ‘clubs’. Come on, its from Rome....we aren't even on that continent anymore. At least i'm not. They don't fit in a democracy.

Originally posted by Vanitas

"Homosexuality?"

Again, it's a non-issue. I don't think anyone at that time - or, let's be frank, at any time, up until 20 or so years ago - would have been thrilled about it. But the fact is there is no mention, direct or indirect, of it in the NT.

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Romans 1:27

OK...this may be outta place but I HAVE to ask: why is it that only Catholics have demons? I was born and raised Baptist and we (my family and church) have never dealt with demons or demonic posession. My girlfriend is Methodist and her church never deals with the "demonic". Is it a Catholic thing? It may be outta place asking this, but I can't post this question as a "post"...if you guys would like to move it elsewhere, please do. For some reason, I simply can't post a new discussion. I know no others that deal with demons/demonic entities besides the Catholic, so I ask. Does anyone here know of any websites that regard the Catholic and their teachings? I have plenty of Catholic friends, and though I respect them, believing in "saints" seems ludicrous to me. They're HUMANS!! Same with "Mother" Mary...she was a human. Anyways, to the OP, I wouldn't "search" for other's opinions regarding religion/your religious beliefs....none of us know what the hell is going on!! Faith is the evidence of things unseen...I think is what "they" say. During my time here, I've realized that other's opinion's about spirituality/religion never really agree/disagree with me so I just continue on my lonely journey. Think for yourself, question authority but don't do acid...I think is what Timothy Leary said . Thanks for any help you guys can dish out...ATS members are great when it comes to deep thinking!!!

Originally posted by THEGodSend

Originally posted by Vanitas

"Homosexuality?"

Again, it's a non-issue. I don't think anyone at that time - or, let's be frank, at any time, up until 20 or so years ago - would have been thrilled about it. But the fact is there is no mention, direct or indirect, of it in the NT.

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Romans 1:27

Ah, that settles it! All that talk of equality and love and unconditional forgiveness - and then this bloodthirsty savagery!
Ugh - what was I thinking?!
But I have realised the error and wickedness of my ways and take back everything I said and am now repenting...

Homosexuality always becomes more prevalent in democratic societies. At that risk of offending someone, you can probably chalk it up to women’s rights. They don’t talk about homosexuality because they talk about oppressing women, they avoid the issue. They would just own their women and do whatever they want. Once women can start leaving men, it comes out.

let me start by saying i have zero faith in anything supernatural. now ill try my best to answer why i think the old testament is important to cristians and why they dont know how to answer the question. ill also give the jews some credit here since they actually understand the old testament.
to understand the relavance of the old testement is actually very easy. the old testement is the story of the lineage of "gods people" the jews form adam to jesus through the line of patriarchs. in short its a geneology intended to provide divine right to the supposed christ.
all this gets lost by christians due to thier puritanical interpritation of old testament, begging most noteably with original sin. ask a christian what the original sin was and they wont be able to tell you in a coherent way. ask a rabbi and you here about the sexual suduction of eve by the devil. yes thats right the old book states in no uncertain terms that eve had sex with satan and then had sex with adam thus becoming just like all the other people of the world, sinners. the rabbi will also say that this was by gods design in order that he might bring his loved creation, man, closer to his heart through the incarnation of himself(jesus) and know you know GI JOE