Father, and Son I still don't get it! (Isaiah, Egyptian, bible)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then I suppose we could get into a discussion about the validity of various translations.
Quote; "My point is that well meaning christians can easily disagree about the truth of scripture. Thats all. But I do believe that we need more respectful discussions, that explore different beliefs. I believe it can only help.
My method, at least within this forum, is pretty abbreviated ( I'm a terrible typer, and a worse at spelling, so it takes FOREVER ) and sometimes tongue and cheek"
I believe all translations are valid, but some are easier to understand, that's all. As for any inconsistency, I agree with AdrianR, God COULD keep errors out of the book He uses to communicate His will with mankind, therefore the things viewed as inconsistencies are not inconsistencies, just misunderstandings. A closer more thourough examination of other texts that back up what a particlar Scripture is saying is the only way to clarify the meaning of the Scripture. I've said it before and will keep saying it, the majority of texts coupled with historical evidence reveales the truth in Scripture.
I'll agree that "validity" was perhaps too strong a word. We could probably get closer to the truth by reading ALL translations. I also agree that GOD does not err. We do.
Regarding our collective ability to, as you said, "clarify" scripture
take this example, regarding the resurrection;
Luke refers to a bodily resurrection, and in fact speaks of JESUS eating.
Paul on the other hand states that the risen body is not flesh and blood but spiritual.
I would call this a major inconsistency, but I agree there are no errors in scripture. So were does that leave us? I maintain that it leaves us to continue our humble search for unity and understanding.
I think the accuracy of the translation does count. For instance in my (King James) version of the Bible in Proverbs 8:22 it doesn't say "Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest his of achievments of long ago" it says "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before the works of old." which isn't quite the same thing. By substituting 'Jehovah' for 'The Lord' we automatically get a situation where the 'me' person in this verse cannot be Jehovah.
I believe there is nothing at all complex confusing or misleading about the Bible's references to Jesus and God. They are quite clearly two distinct beings. This is never more obvious than in the garden of Gethsemane where Jesus pleads that 'this cup' might be taken from him in Matthew 26 verse 39 but then says "nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt." He is obviously talking to someone else.
When he was on the cross he cried out ,"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" He quite clearly does not think he himself is God. He is calling out to someone else.
The Holy Spirit too is a completely different being. In John 14 verse 26 Jesus told his disciples: " the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." There Jesus is quite clearly speaking about two different people one of whom will be sent by the other.
Nowhere in the Bible does the doctrine of the Trinity appear. In fact this doctrine was never taught in the early church. It is an invention of man. Ironically it was in existence in Pagan religions which predate Christianity.
In John 17 verse 11 Jesus refers to himself and his Holy Father as being 'one' but look at the statement in context. He is praying to his Father and asking him to "keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." So there Jesus is praying that the believers 'may be one' in other words may be united and not falling out and disagreeing with each other just as he and his Father are united. Not that they become somehow absorbed or homogenised into the same living creature but that they be united in purpose. Similar to the marriage ceremony where it is stated that the bride and groom become one. They are still two seperate people but they are united in marriage.
The Bible doesn't contradict itself, but people's understanding (or misunderstanding) of its teachings quite often does.
Willowthewhisp, while I agree with the majority of your post above I must disagree with this;
"By substituting 'Jehovah' for 'The Lord' we automatically get a situation where the 'me' person in this verse cannot be Jehovah."
What most people don't realize is that it wasn't the name Jehovah that is substituting the words "Lord" (or "God") but it was the words Lord & God that came to substitute the name Jehovah. The divine name was inspired to be recorded in the Bible some 7000 times in the Scriptures and was later removed by revisionists, they feeling that the name was not important. This is clearly the work of Satan for certainly if God had His Bible writers record His name so many times then it is important to Him. The substitution of the words Lord and God have only led to more confusion. Whatever the tetragrammaton is now pronounced like, be it Yahweh or Jehovah, this name is the name of Almighty God. (Ps 83:18 / Isa 42:8)
The problem that we now have with the Trinity is that if you find a denomination that you feel meets most of your beliefs, you sort of automatically find yourself in a church that supports belief in the Trinity.
So then, you will be faced with either saying you believe, when you don't or don't understand, or just keeping your doubts to yourself. I suspect that many simply go with the flow about the meaning of the Trinity.
We go to the church nearest our house. It's where a lot of our friends and neighbors go. A lot of the social life for us centers around the things that go on at the church. It teaches the Trinity. There is no way in the world that I would search to try and find one somewhere in driving distance that didn't.
I think the idea of the Christian Trinity first appeared with the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.
I believe Clement(the 4th Bishop of rome) in urging the Christians of Corinth to end their quarrels referred to the trinity, as well as Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Ephesians.
At any rate it has been discussed for millenium,and I'm not ready to throw out the council of nicea, augustine, or the council of trent yet.
I think the accuracy of the translation does count. For instance in my (King James) version of the Bible in Proverbs 8:22 it doesn't say "Jehovah produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest his of achievments of long ago" it says "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before the works of old." which isn't quite the same thing. By substituting 'Jehovah' for 'The Lord' we automatically get a situation where the 'me' person in this verse cannot be Jehovah.
I believe there is nothing at all complex confusing or misleading about the Bible's references to Jesus and God. They are quite clearly two distinct beings. This is never more obvious than in the garden of Gethsemane where Jesus pleads that 'this cup' might be taken from him in Matthew 26 verse 39 but then says "nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt." He is obviously talking to someone else.
When he was on the cross he cried out ,"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" He quite clearly does not think he himself is God. He is calling out to someone else.
The Holy Spirit too is a completely different being. In John 14 verse 26 Jesus told his disciples: " the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." There Jesus is quite clearly speaking about two different people one of whom will be sent by the other.
Nowhere in the Bible does the doctrine of the Trinity appear. In fact this doctrine was never taught in the early church. It is an invention of man. Ironically it was in existence in Pagan religions which predate Christianity.
In John 17 verse 11 Jesus refers to himself and his Holy Father as being 'one' but look at the statement in context. He is praying to his Father and asking him to "keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." So there Jesus is praying that the believers 'may be one' in other words may be united and not falling out and disagreeing with each other just as he and his Father are united. Not that they become somehow absorbed or homogenised into the same living creature but that they be united in purpose. Similar to the marriage ceremony where it is stated that the bride and groom become one. They are still two seperate people but they are united in marriage.
The Bible doesn't contradict itself, but people's understanding (or misunderstanding) of its teachings quite often does.
I believe I have established that I'm not an adherent to Sola Scriptura.
I'm sorry. I don't know what you mean by 'Sola Scriptura'. Is it Latin?
It means by "scripture alone". There has been a debate going on for centuries regarding this, primarily after the reformation.
(I'm gonna butcher this) it goes something like this;
Pro - Scpriture alone is sufficient. All of GODs revelation to man is contained within scripture, nothing needs to be added.
Con- Scripture is the inspired word of GOD, our relationship ( with GOD )is mediated not only through the Biblical word, but in and through the community of faith in which that word is proclaimed
I suppose the latter then is why people end up with such different opinions about what Christianity is all about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.