Bible contains errors

Hey, Kidan, wanna just warn you about using 3 to point to the trinity...
A) thers plasma and afternoon, its not fair to divide it into 3.
B) past/present/future implies that God changes from father/son/holy spirit, which he does not.
-- anyway I'm just saying be careful about your words. You don't wanna screw up when we're dealing with this kind of thing, which is why I don't like doing it "for real".

Yah, the "give a reason for your faith" is in 1 Peter, chapter 5, I believe (around there). Scientific/Historic/Scriptural evidence is very important to know as Christians, and we shouldn't limit ourselves.

And about interpretations.. I don't think theres really such a thing as "interpretations", only "interpretation". No where, ever, are there more than one correct interpretation (except for tiny nuances). Even in poetry, authors sit down with a theme in mind, and communicate it. Its up to you to interperet it right. Everything else is just wrong.

And Yes, the bible teaches us constantly that we should look through the scripture to make sure that we arn't corrupted. I would assume its somewhere in Timothy where Paul advises us be wary of false teachers. I know for sure its at the end of first john, but I like peter beter.

Its late and I've already gone on for far too long. cya.
 
That's what I thought. I think a MAN said that, but I do not think God would ever say that: way too New Age cult-sounding, or Hinduistic.

Aren't we a body? The body of Christ? Isn't it uncool if we become cancerous and begin to eat away at this body? It's already happened, and many have fallen away from their faith in God for it, apostates. Why? I know not. That's their personal reason, but it happens, and one day, it will happen on a mass scale when people begin to rat the Christians out to the Antichrist (MARK MY WORDS, this is the Doomsday Cynicist!)
Cults are rampant, and effective. People may like to look at someone who sees HIMSELF as perfect, and the way to God, rather than to a God they can't see who points the way to God. It's kind of sad but it happens.

Now, no offense to any Church of Christers, but I've studied a bit of it (even though I got the Campbells mixed up once), and as I look at it and what they do, I see they are a definite cult. Take the college campuses, for instance. They stalk the poor kids! Call them. Relentlessly hunt them down: come to our church. Then, once they have hold of you, they try not to let go until their claws are deep in your mind with their doctrines and whatnot. "You are saved by baptism. The Church of Christ is the way to God. All other churches are false."

Kinda like that. And that's basically what TRADITIONAL CoC says. Now, I go to a school on the grounds of a CoC, but it's in no way the same as another CoC in town. It's more relaxed, kinda like a less severe South Baptist church would be. "No dancing, no drinking, or hellfire on you!" is the traditional SB. I go to a Baptist church in South Texas, and it's just plain Baptist. Nothing about doctrine or whatnot, or ritual, or laws in the church. Which is good. It bases itself on God's Word, not on little technicalities and whatnot. This CoC I kinda enjoy visiting from time to time with my friends at their youth doesn't push doctrine or beliefs on me. People there have their own, and their church is kinda divided betwen Traditional and Non-traditional, and the nons strike me as more Bible-believing and God-following than the traditional.

Even in my class, we have different religions. Baptist, Traditional CoC (at one different church), Traditional and Non-Traditional from the CoC the school is on, and Presbyterian. A lot of conflict goes on, but in general, it seems, that God is kept in sight by all of us, though some of us, like, say, the Traditional CoC, go kinda extreme in their beliefs, and refuse to listen to an argument or debate or whatnot.
So our school kinda doesn't allow much talk about "secondary doctrine", which is kinda sad, in my eyes.

And always, the Word is looked at differently from each person. Take the passage in, I believe Matthew (not sure), where Christ tells the robber that he shall be with Him in paradise THAT day. Then he and the other guy (we can assume), died. NOW. One or two of the CoC members say that baptism still is a necessary part of salvation, and others say it's just a show of faith. They're all my friends, but we can have our own beliefs conflict at times. Does it matter who's right and who's wrong? So long as you don't make God an item of rules and regulations, then I think you're fine. Follow God with your heart, believe in Christ, and don't stray from that path: and you're set for God.

Now, I'm gonna take on the Catholics. Transubstantiaton. WAS it said in the Bible that God was literally bread? No. No one ate his flesh (as the Pharisees began to spaz about). It was a figure of speech, the way Christ tended to talk, in parables and analogies and whatnot. YET the Catholics believe(d) that Christ comes down in the form of bread and wine. Drink the wine at Eucharist, and you have Christ's blood in you. Eat the bread and you have Christ's flesh in you. UNTRUE. It's a symbolism. A ritual. It is not essential to salvation.
Again, I'll fall back on the robber for my example: did he eat or drink the bread and wine the 12 Apostles did, and began to set as an example for future Christians? No, but he was still guaranteed salvation. Interesting, niez-ca poi?

Okay, that's enough for now. The point is this: differences in belief can hinder the body of Christ. So long as you keep those points I think are essential (and I believe God says are what keeps us to him), then you're fine. Believe in Christ, don't stray off his path (though that tends to be impossible...but still, don't fall away!), and follow God, with everything you got. Don't get sidetracked by what MAN says is necessary; after all, is it more right to obey God or to obey man?
 
lag -- as for plasma, that is as much if not more of a state of energy than a state of matter. or more accurately the state between matter and energy.

on the parts of the day, morning noon and nite are the 3 general times of day. It would probably have been better to replace noon with afternoon, but imo the day is split like this 6am-12 is morning, 12-6 afternoon (or what i called noon) 6-6 is nite

and i'm not saying that God is like past/present/future (or any other example) I'm saying that examples of a trinity are evident in nature and that the Bible says we will find evidence of God in nature.

Now as for past/present/future, why it's an evidence of the Trinity is because it is three distinctly different types of time (yesterday, today, tomorrow) yet all three are still time. They all have the same properties of time, yet they are still different aspects of time.
 
Actually, God commands us to have communion in rememberence of him. Its a *command*. Not a suggestion, *command*. Not "if you want, do this in rememberence of me", he tells us to DO IT.

Secondly, you talk about how CoC is 'stalking' around the campuses, and what not, and I think the real Church of Christ, (not the occult that holds the name), should be doing this. I say forget politcal correctness, especially when it means someones going to hell.

And Kidan... I really don't like analogies, at least when it comes to God. If you need an analogy to understand it, it means you can't understand it. (as in, its impossible for humans). A lot of occults sprung up because they couldn't comprehend the trinity, so they made stuff up to replace it.

And when the Bible tells us that there is evidense everywhere in nature, he was referring to those who never hear the word of God. They have no excuse because nature is so wonderful, there must be a divine creator. I don't believe he was referring to an explanation of the trinity.

Thats what I seem to get from what I can remember of the context. I can't, for the life of me, remember the verse now. Perhaps I'm wrong, but my memory tends to serve me correctly.
 
uhm..so you don't like analogies?  What about parables?  they're the same thing, and that's HOW Christ taught.  Even more importantly analogies and parables are great ways to teach, especially moral lessons and lessons about things that are harder to understand.  Think, if someone is having trouble wrapping their minds around the concept of the Trinity, any of those 3 analogies do wonderfully to explain it in simple terms that they can understand, and more importantly they are examples that are almost universally recognizable as 3-in-1 concepts.  You don't like analogies, but they are a useful and necessary tool for teaching.

There is evidence of God in nature, both for those who have never heard and for those who have.  Yes it's a wonderful and beautiful and complex creation.  Yet the evidence is not just for those who haven't heard.  Nature provides as much evidence for sinners as it does saints.  Also I use everything in my power to preach the Word and more importantly to raise up good disciples of Christ.  To do so, my students need an understanding of not just the text of the Bible, they need an understanding of what that text means.  and If I use an example from nature to explain a point (an analogy) and more importantly if it works, how can you say it's not for the saints to use?  Besides, why would it be in His word if it was just for those who've never heard/seen/read it?

As for the sacrement, yes it is a command, but what exactly is He commanding?  That once a  year, we sit down and have the Lord's supper??

Yes, the outward action here is the eating and drinking. Yet you must remember, we worship in Spirit and in Truth, what we do with the physical body has nowhere near the importance that what the spiritual side means.  Yes, the eating and drinking is the actions, but what's required is that you are taking the Lord's offer,  you are saying, "I have become a Christian, and this body was broken for me, and this blood was shed for me."

Now, does it matter that we have that little cracker and that little cup of grape juice?  Or is it any meal where Christ is venerated, is it any meal where we remember Him, where we are in fellowship with other Christians in rememberance of Him. Which is it?  The stuffy ceremony, where everyone either stands up in the row, or walks up to the cup, or stands/sits/kneels around the alter OR is it the concept of gathering togethor around food and remembering Christ and what HE did for us?

The OT sacrifice and by extension the paschal lamb, focused on the sin of the person and the nation.  the sacrifice (and the paschal lamb) was in rememberance of the sin, and the covering of those said sins.  The NT sacrifice deleted those sins, so we have the Lord's supper (a Christian's paschal lamb if you will), which is not in rememberance of our sins but rather in rememberance of the forgiveness of our sins,  of the wonder that Christ died a broken and bloody and miserable death for us unworthy sinners, just so those sins could be forgotten.  The sacrement is not the little cracker or the wine, the sacrement is the rememberance of what the broken body and the flowing blood the Christ gave up for us.
 
I was waiting for Kidan's response.
wink.gif
I wrote up a whole thing, but didn't want to put words in either Kidan's or Ultima's mouth, so I never posted it.

Exactly. The parables were what I was thinking of. Jesus used parables many times to help describe God, heaven, and Christ Himself.

As far as communion, I didn't think Ultima was necessarily saying we shouldn't have communion. I think he was referring to a concept the Catholics have where they believe the bread is TRULY Jesus. Like Jesus became bread and they are actually eating Him. Likewise, the wine. Did I get that right, Ultima?
 
Aww, do go on. You're doing a better job than I could.
laugh.gif

Yeh. Now, I take the Lord's Supper, but my mother warns me that it must be in my heart that I WANT to do this, that I WANT to honor God through this, umm, eating of a tasteless cracker and wine/juice.

More on this, though, when I return from school, guys.
 
Yes, Ultima was describing the Catholic concept of trasmutation (which can actually be traced back to the worship of Horus (or is it Set? been a while since I've read on this) in Egyptian mythos). Yet as in everything else we do, we need to be doing it for the right reasons. If we're taking the Lord's Supper just because "That's What You Do In My Church," then taking the Lord's Supper is actually wrong! In 1 Cor. where Paul describes the Lord's Supper to the Corinthians he says that you must have your heart in the right place and be eating it for the right reasons otherwise there are grave reprecussions for not doing this correctly.

But again I ask, is it the tasteless cracker and the wine that is the important part or is it the Fellowship with other Christians over food in rememberance of what Christ did for us?
 
I believe it was "do this in memory of me," referring not to the meal, but to him (and his death), so yah, just agreeing with you, but pointing out that I always did.

And I was referring to analagies about the trinity, because that is something that the human mind cannot fathom, so using an analogy for that might just throw you off. I suppose it can't hurt, but you don't want to use it when arguing (in apologetics).

Sorry for the confusion, but I thought I communicated it clearly.
 
The best trinity analogy I heard was on Nuns on the Run. God is like a shamrock, three parts but one
 
Why can't the human mind fathom the trinity? I understand the concept. I accept the concept. I believe in it. If I did not understand or accept it, how could I ever dream of teaching it? No, anything that we can be taught from the Bible, we can understand. What we don't always understand is the WHY God does things. But that lack of understanding is more from a lack of knowledge, than an inability to understand why God does things. We don't know the reason because we don't have all the data.

The Bible is made to be understood by everyone. Not just those ivory tower intellectuals, who have phd's in Theology. Remember most of the Apostles were fishermen. Paul was a tentmaker. These are not a group of people that sit around all day trying to find the deep meaning of life within a book. These are people of the earth, and they understood all that they wrote, they understood the concepts and the relationships and the glory of God. There is no reason we can't do the same.

CCGR
I like that analogy
 
Actually, Paul was quite intelligent and learned. His writings clearly show this. But he was also a Pharisee. He was well aware of the Law and the OT. He was also from Tarsus which was a home of intelligence. Now, my personal feeling is, Paul was extremely intelligent, but used it for the wrong purposes. I think when Christ got a hold of him, he had Paul use that intelligence for His Kingdom. Paul had a wisdom and smarts as a gift from God. Now, that is only my opinion and you won't find that in Scriptures.

His profession as a tentmaker came after the conversion. It was his way of making money and being a missionary. I had thought about doing this myself at one time. I didn't want to be a tentmaker, though. I wanted to live and work in Germany, but help local churches get started or help with music ministry.
 
Humans can only apprehend many aspects of God, and not comprehend it. If you fully understand how the three persons in one work, well I have a lot of respect for you. Personelly, when ever I try to start trying to, I start thinking that God has some kind of split personality disorder or that they are seperate people. (Do you know anyone/thing else that talks to themselves constantly? Do any of the other things the trinity does in relationship to itself?)

Paul was a genius. I wish I knew greek if only to read Paul's writings, honest. Of course, I'm never really going to work at learning Greek, so I guess its a blank 'threat', but I've heard a lot about the complexity of his writing.

Well anyway, what I was saying is that because the human mind is not good enough to comprehend the trinity (at least mine isn't), I don't think that analagies are good because they just throw you off. Leaving it to the idea of "3 persons in one" is better than "like height, width, and depth". I dunno, I just don't like it, that I don't.
 
While yes Paul was a Pharisee, he was the only one. Out of all the Apostles, only Paul had an eduational background in theology. My point was that you don't need a degree in theology to understand the Bible. It's made for those without higher learning.
 
I agree with you completly. I only said the bit about "paul was a genius" because SSquared seemed unsure if he was or not (the way he stated "thats just my opinion"), and I was just confirming him.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Kidan @ April 29 2003,9:04)]While yes Paul was a Pharisee, he was the only one.  Out of all the Apostles, only Paul had an eduational background in theology.  My point was that you don't need a degree in theology to understand the Bible.  It's made for those without higher learning.
Click to expand...
I am new to this board and hope I'm not jumping in too soon but these passages come to me.
1 Corinthians 2:10-14

10. But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.
11. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.
12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13. These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I have been in alot of discussions and have found at least from my observations that first if your not seeking truth and just trying to read the bible it can and most likely will be to a person full of contradictions and errors, but as a christian or even as a person seeking to know Christ His Spirit will start opening you up to things you could not understand before like Jeremiah 33:3 :
`Call to Me, and I will answer you, and show you great and mighty things, which you do not know.'

No matter where, who, or how you gain an understanding about God the knowledge originated from His Spirit.
 
Stop trying to scare him CCGR
tounge.gif


Welcome Chuck.

Yes, the word of God can be confusing to a non-believer, but if they actually want to understand it, they can. Whether they accept it or believe it is another matter. What I'm talking about is this concept that the normal person CAN'T understand the Bible. This is an inane and pointless and evil suggestion. To say that we can't understand the Bible is to say that we can't believe in it, for how can we truly accept Christ, if we can't understand the writings that lead us to Him?
 
Exactly Chuck! And welcome to the boards.
smile.gif


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]I agree with you completly. I only said the bit about "paul was a genius" because SSquared seemed unsure if he was or not (the way he stated "thats just my opinion"), and I was just confirming him.
Click to expand...

Let me clear it up. I firmly believe Paul was highly intelligent. What I was stating as "my opinion" was that his intelligence was supernatural from God. Some people are smart, but Paul's 'smartness' stemmed from what I feel was a Gift from God. It is THAT aspect (God-given) I was saying as my own opinion.
 
I think I understand the bible, I just don't think that all the bits fit together to read as the work of one omniscient being!

The two Testaments are wildly contradictory in tone and message - in fact the NT seems to be there solely to countermand the OT, to make Christianity more palatable to a religiously permissive Roman society.

If the bible is so simple - then how come so many arguments have been fought over it? Not just verbal ones, either...

Eon
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top