Bible contains errors

Is this a new Mr_Eon?  Haven't we had this conversation before?  
smile.gif


The NT is not there to counter the OT.  Jesus came to fulfill what the OT was pointing to.  The OT gave God's laws.  The most notable are the Ten Commandents, but there are chapters and chapters on other laws.  These laws were set in place to show us our sins.  Without them, we have no boundaries.  Everything is free reign.  God points out our sins and then says, "Be sinless or die."  God explains how to become sinless...through sacrifice.  Through the blood of a lamb.  The whole while, it was obvious that none of that really, truly made you sinless.  But the Israelites were to wait for the coming Messiah who would bring them to the Kingdom of God.

Along comes Jesus (the Sonship of God) and the NT.  He WAS this coming Messiah.  He was on earth like a man.  He was pounded with the same temptations as us.  And yet remained sinless.  He then sacrificed His life on the cross.  Finally, there is the perfect sacrifice.  A sinless body.  The One who takes away our sin.

So, yes, there is still a great relationship between the two Testaments.  They are strongly tied together.

</span>
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]If the bible is so simple - then how come so many arguments have been fought over it?
Click to expand...
<span =''>

I think it's simply because people don't want to believe it.  A lot of people can't imagine there is only one way to God.  Or others may just not want to give up control of their lives to someone else.  I think there's lots of reasons people argue it.  The Gospel message is simple.  Jesus came, died on the cross sinless...removing our sins, and rose again to life.

You should probably be best at answering the question.
 
Dude, you guys have to stop putting words in my mouth. I said the *TRINITY*. TRINITY. NOT BIBLE. Heck, the Bible doesn't even ever talk about a Trinity! It points to it, but it does not fully explain it. That is just one of the many reasons I have to believe that the TRINITY is impossible to understand completly by humans.

If you went by only the Bible, most people would not formulate a Trinity. Except for 1 word in the Bible, nothing points to a Trinity. (The great commission: Baptising them in the name of the father, son and holy spirit. name is singular, therefor they are all one.)

If I wasn't Christian, the main thing I would attack about Christianity is the Trinity because it is not able to be completly understood by humans. If you disagree that the TRINITY is not able to be completly understood by humans, I'd love for you to explain it to me.
 
true. But I still pretend I know.

I don't give it much thought though. If I know it exists, then it exists.
 
</span>
[b said:
Quote[/b] ] in fact the NT seems to be there solely to countermand the OT, to make Christianity more palatable to a religiously permissive Roman society.
Click to expand...
<span =''>

You talk like they are entities. They are different books written by different people. And I don't see where in the NT anyone talked against anyone in the OT...
 
That's not what he meant. What he was saying is that the New Testament, one of love, gospel-sharing, mercy, God's coming, is the virtual antithesis of the Old Testament, one of war, law-keeping, sacrifice, sins, God's wrath.

Well, Eon, perhaps this MIGHT help: "Seek first His Kingdom and righteousness, and all these things shall follow." All these things being goodness, mercy, love, etc. The traits of God. So many people fight over it because so many people want to believe there is no God, and that man is it, there is nothing to be saved from, or anyone to save them from it, should they need to be saved, except for man.
Also, perhaps this will help. Wise words spoken by my God: "The world hates you for you are not of the world, but are of God." Again, prophecy said of Christ: "He came unto his own, but his own accepted him not." Doesn't that suck? What happens when Maitreyah FINALLY pops out of hiding? I say we all crucify him. I mean, he IS God after all....right?
No. We have people who either believe in God and His Word, disbelieve in God, but like the Bible as a good book to read, disbelieve in God and could care less about the Bible, or believe they are God and make their own Bible and interpretations of such. Who would I believe in? Well, I have a perfect God who wants nothing more than my eternal life. I have a madman who preaches bow before me or suffer my wrath.
NOW. Sure, God will punish us with hellfire for eternity if we disbelieve in him, but it's our own fault: we were born into that hellfire. God is not forcing Christ upon us, JUST REALIZE THAT! Christ is a gift. You can take it, or not. It's your choice. Reject him, and continue your walk towards ####, or accept him and turn from the world to God.
More on this later.
 
</span>
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]But I still pretend I know.

I don't give it much thought though. If I know it exists, then it exists.
Click to expand...
<span =''>

Thats how I feel, but I don't like it when people trick themselves into believing they understand things they don't, so I was just explaining how it seemed to to Kidan. If Kidan really understands it, he'll explain it to me, because I want to know. But if he doesn't, I'm fine pretending I know// apprehending it until I die.
 
Um.......bad use of word there dude.
It's comprehending it. Apprehending something means to catch them, like, "The police apprehended Bob the Magic Marker." You're saying, "I don't comprehend the Trinity."

I think Kidan isn't saying what you think he's saying. Also, understand: maybe God gave him something else that He hasn't given us? Being online doesn't negate spiritual gifts, or knowledge from the divine. If he understands the Trinity, then he does.

A theologist said it best, better than I ever can: "Try to explain it and you'll lose your mind; try to deny it and you'll lose your soul."
 
I can't see how the OT and NT are any different. We are living in the NT, and it doesn't seem to be any different than the world of the OT, except that we have had the final sacrafice to end all sacrafices. In the OT world they lived by God's command, and God gave and blessed them repeatedly. Is that not how life is even now?
 
And thats exactly what I'm saying- "Try to explain it and you'll lose your mind, try to deny and you'll lose your soul". I agree completly.

And the comparison is apprehend and comprehend. Apprehend "captures" the idea, while comprehend fully understands the idea. Its almost like the differense between knowing OF someone (like I know of President Bush) and KNOWING someone (like Mrs. Bush actually knows President Bush).

And I never said being online negates divine gifts, but a gift like that don't make much sense to me. Whatever.
 
Lag  Ok. Here's the deal with the trinity.  First off, the scripture in Mark that you quoted, a lot of the new texts, DON'T have that, because the older texts dont' have it.  It's now believed that those last few verses were added in the 5th or 6th centuries (or around there anyways).  Yet there is other references to a multiple in one God.  God references Himself in the plural in Genesis.  A number of the names for God are plural even though the Hebrews were monotheistic.  If you'd like a good listing of the scriptures used to defend the trinity I can post them..

The Trinity is the teaching that there exists only one God in all the universe, none before and none after Him (Isaiah 44:6,8) and that God consists of three persons:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.   The Father is not the same person as the Son who is not the same person as the Father, who is not the same person as the Holy Spirit.  Yet, there are not three gods, but one.

God is a trinity of persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is not the same person as the Son; the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is not the same person as Father. They are distinct persons; yet, they are all the one God. They are in absolute perfect harmony consisting of one substance. They are coeternal, coequal, and copowerful. If any one of the three were removed, there would be no God.

Now, for the hard part.  How can this be you ask?  Well as in everything else, we relate the unknown with the known.  This is how knowledge is passed on.  So we can relate this to a number of differing 3-in-1 concepts to explain the known, using these knowns.

The first few we take from the natural universe.
These will be time, space, matter

Time is composed of the past, the present and the future.  All three of these things are unique, yet they are all time.

Space is composed of the 3 dimensions, hieght, width, and depth.  They are all a way to measure something, each unique, yet they are all actually the same thing.

Matter, liquid solid gas...same thing as the other two.

The final analogy we have is actually inspired from Genesis.  God said we were made in His  image.  People always assume that when God said this, he was referring to our physical appearance.  This does not take into account God's nature.  We are a trinity ourselves.

We are composed of the body, the mind, and the soul.  Each has it's own set of instructions, each is a unique aspect of ourselves, yet they work in conjunction with one another and they are still an integral part of the whole.
 
That still doesn't seem to me to be explaining it any better...personally I knew all that, but never really chained it all together like you just did.

If it's the Trinity Lagalott is doubting, then I have to definitely talk with him about it...I think he's merely trying to question your UNDERSTANDING of the Trinity...you said you apprehend it fully or something like that. And he has some beef with that idea, in that NOBODY knows the Trinity, except for those who ARE the Trinity.

But the problem with your matter analogy is that it all passes in a form. Solid is solid...it remains water, sure, but it's solid. Vapor is vapor, but water. LIquid is liquid, but water. There's no changing what it is: except with God solid liquid and vapor are all one and the same in his WATER-ness.

I think I just confused myself......
 
Using your water analogy.

H2O can be any of the 3 forms of matter, and at any given time, H2O exists in all 3 states one this planet.

Liquid, Solid, and Gas.

Each has unique properties, yet all 3 are still H2O.

The Trinity is like this. Each aspect of the Trinity is distinct and unique and have purposefull 'jobs' if you will. Yet all 3 are still God, just like all 3 states of water are still water.
 
BUT water can't be solid, liquid and vapor at the same time.
That's the difference with God. He IS at all times.
But you cleared it up for me.
 
Err, sorry about now replying earlier:

As devil's advocate:

The time analogy implies a modal nature to God that he does not have. God is not "was the the Son, is the Holy Spirit, will be the Father". If you see where I am coming from- the time infers changing and linear-ality.

Depending on how you view the space thing: If you are viewing it in theoretical mathmatics, there is always two dimensional geometry which is no less geometry than three dimensional. What I mean to say is that the third dimension in theoretical math is not necessary to still be theoretical math. Well, its not theoretical, but I want to differentiate it from reality.

In reality, however, there is a fourth dimention that absolutly NEEDS to be addressed: Time. Infinite in 3 dimensions is still nothing. Either because it will lack depth, height, width, or time.

(Also, going back: length, height width are interchangable, while the 3 persons in the trinity are distinct)

This is probably the best analogy, however. You can stick your guns to "three dimensional math/geometry", where the 3 are required, and nothing else, but that isn't "real". Theres always either something else, or it can be adequatly less.

And lastly the "human trinity". I always thought that being created in God's image made us relational, able to create, and have emotions. But thats besides the point: The body, mind and spirit are completly seperate and can the spirit (and mind?) can function fine without the body.

I think the relational part comes in even more so when we try to fill the hole that God is supposed to fill with other things, but nothing quite does it.

------------

Anyway, what I'm saying is that all of these things are similiar to the trinity, but you seem to say that they are "exactly like". I'm sorry if I'm mistaken. I believe we can grasp things that are "similiar" to the trinity, but not the trinity itself.

And yah, I realize the the "1 word" thing was a compete mistake. But my point is still true: That nothing DIRECTLY explains the trinity. Its something that we can deduce from things like plurality in reference to a single God and such.

This is really long, and I hope its coherent. I would prefer that you ask for an explanation if it isn't rather than assuming. Your most likely going to be right, but I don't want to waste your or my time by formulating ideas that don't pertain to waht I'm saying and having to re-explain what I meant.




--------------------

Ultima gets what I'm saying. And just FYI, I wrote this earlier, before Ultima said what I meant, except much shorter.
biggrin.gif
(CGA crashed
sad.gif
). GJ Ultima. And yes, its the understanding of the trinity, not the trinity itself. And, If you were to use the H20 idea: God would just be 1 molecule and would have to be all 3 states at one time, which is impossible.

See, the way I see, all this is great because it alludes to the idea of the trinity, yet its not quite there, somewhat like our understanding to the trinity. Yah.
 
No, I'm mapping unknowns onto knowns. This is how knowledge is given.

For the water. God would be like ALL water everywhere. He is EVERYTHING not just 1 instance. Then he exists in all 3 states simultaneously.

No, the implications of the time analogy is that we recognize that the past is different than the future. Yet at the same time, we recognize that they are both just aspects of time, and therefore the same.
 
I *could* keep nitpicking, but I don't think this is going anywhere.

Unless you want me to, Kidan?
 
Whine whine. I sense needless bickering.
Prologue: God's God. Story: God's God. The end. Epilogue: we don't understand his ways. We never will. So what? God's God. The second end.

PS..."Once, there was a place where it never rained....the END."
 
The bible contains no errors.

The only time an alleged error pops up is because somebody has tried to limit God by their own understanding of how the universe works. In otherwords, the only error is actually on the person making observations part: Their error is that they are trying to limit God.
 
Its not really bickering, Ultima. Me &lt;3 Kidan
biggrin.gif
. I just don't really see what he's seeing, so we're trying to understand eachother.

And let me run with the idea Saxamaphone had: Limiting God sux0r. And a since it seems to me that no analogy seems to be "quite right", that when you use them, you limit God.

Thats where I'm coming from. I know Kidan understands what he's saying, but I don't like analogies for that reason.

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