We need to look at who Jesus is and what His role in our lives are and if we believe it and then look at how we're to conduct our lives and treat other people.

The thing that gets me is that christ was a rebel of his time.  He came and told people to forget about the law of the day.....he was a real rabble-rouser.

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made;without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

The issue I have with that is that that gospel was written way after Genesis was.  Therefore, John could be retrospectively saying 'this is how it is'...

 

God, the Father: Stern, but Just. Expects his directions to be followed. Gives lots of chances with warnings of consequences. Loves His Kids. Jesus, the Son: The Hippie. Loving, compassionate, but honest about right and wrong. Taught by example. Loved those others considered unloveable. Brave, accepting, but still human in His emotions. The Spirit: God mobilized--God on wheels. Someone's talking? He's listening. Feeling alone? He's there

I have much the same imagery.  Very much the same....whodathunk that, huh?

 

You'd no doubt enjoy some of the gnostic texts as well, dharma, and other books of the bible that were ultimately rejected at the council of Nicea.

Actually, i just ordered 'The Other Bible' from Amazon.  I've seen it before, but I'm really looking forward to getting stuck into it again!

 

One problem with the "chapter/verse" method of interpretation, is that it ignores one of the most fundamental principles of Biblical interpretation; that of concept

Exactamundo! 

I believe in the authority of the Bible, and believe that it is God-breathed.

I don't know that I believe that.  I think that it's a handbook as to how to live, that the overall message is good....but I'm not entirely sure that it's divine.  Divinely inspired, perhaps....but I don't know about the 'breath of god' thing.  I think that it's all a matter of faith.....

 

so it seems likely those in power would have attributed imperial reference to the only 'lord' they recognized.

That's what I have come to understand on my quest for an answer this morning as well....however, I would hva expected, were that the case, to see that pluralism used more throughout the bible.

 

Don't be a dick.

Eaxctly.  Or, in the immortal words of Bill and Ted: 'Be most excellent to each other'!

 

Man spends next 2000 years being dicks to one another in the name of the Don't be a Dick cause. God chuckles at ultimate irony.

I have often wondered if, if there really IS a god, that is...if he's not looking at what's going on and saying 'dudes, you have it sooooo wrong.  That's not what I meant at all when i said that....you totally took that the wrong way'.

I'm not saying the Bible is wrong. What I'm doing is showing fault in the literal interpretation approach. The message can be maintained through different wordings and translations. There are many ways to express the same idea, and even if the words don't match quite right, you can still get the point across.

If we don't take the Bible literally, and have to "interpret" meaning from every verse instead of taking it at face value, whose interpretation is right? That's the issue with that. There are over 1000 people that attend my church. We might all read a passage and we're probably all going to get something different from that passage. So...who's right? If I have to "interpret" it, it becomes too messy, and doesn't follow the order that God created in the world...

I think that we like to make things really really complicated. The Bible's complicated enough as it is without having to come up with our own meaning for the thing.

We have faith.

We believe, that the Bible, while human-crafted, contains the word of God. As a Lutheran, I believe in the Holy Trinity. As it goes like this.

To quote the Athanasian Creed:

We worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being. So also there are not three uncreated Beings, nor three infinite Beings, but one uncreated and one infinite Being. In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. And yet there are not three omnipotent Beings, but one omnipotent Being. Thus the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God only. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord, and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only.

To quote the Athanasian Creed:

That's a man made creed.  So's the Nicence Creed the Anglican Church uses.  Those are the words of man, not of god.  The problem I have with organized christianity is that it has a long history of keeping away from the public eye the things that it thinks we shouldn't see or hear.  The Council Of Nicea, for example, rejected some books of the bible, and there are many other ancient texts that weren't included.  You ought to read The Other Bible like I am, Beebles....I think it would really open your eyes. 

I think that we like to make things really really complicated. The Bible's complicated enough as it is without having to come up with our own meaning for the thing.

That's the problem.  Because we don't know for sure what is meant by each verse and passage, we have to rely on our own interpretation.   Unfortunately, there's no 'Guide To The Bible - what I meant when I said that' by god or christ or anyone else.  It would help if there were, and I'm sure there wouldn't have been near as many wars, cursades etc etc etc as there have been if something like that were available.

I've read portions of the gnostic bible. I know most of the history of my faith. But that does not cause me to disbelieve that Jesus sacrificed his life to save me from my sin.

And, I quoted the Athanasian Creed to explain why it says OUR. That was your original question, right?

*Edit*

I'm also reading the Koran... and a history of the Muslim faith. Just like the Bible was edited by The Council of Nicea and Constantine, the Koran was edited as well. The winners write history, after all.

And, I quoted the Athanasian Creed to explain why it says OUR. That was your original question, right?

But again, that was written AFTER the bible was.  The creed that you quote is meant for recitation by a congregation, which is why it uses the plural.  The part of Genesis I'm talking about is supposedly god speaking and he says 'let US make them in OUR image'...which suggests to me that there are multiple gods.

 

And I'm telling you the best way I describe my belief. Whether it was written before or after the Bible is irrelevant.

As others have said, God is the Three in One, the Three being God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. If you look at the story of the baptism of Jesus, you'll see all three present.

If you look at the story of the baptism of Jesus, you'll see all three present.

And I understand and see that, but that still doesn't really answer my question.

Never heard of the Royal 'We'? All Monarchs speak of themselves in the 3rd person plural.

I can't answer for Christian Scholars, but I can answer for myself and the Chruch of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

The Godhead is made up of Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit. Not only does the Genesis account have God speaking in the plural, if you look up St John 1:1-3 (KJV) it says:

1: In the beginning was the Word,, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2: The same was in the beginning with God. 3: All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

So, The Word (Jesus) was with Heavenly Father from the beginning, and Jesus was the member of the Godhead that "all things were made by".

So, if you take both sciptures together, there is no conflict or "schizophrenia". ;~D

" Never heard of the Royal 'We'? All Monarchs speak of themselves in the 3rd person plural."

EoIC beat me to it. Anyway, ask 100 people you'll get 100 different answers. To many of us the Bible is written in the words and perspective of the people at the time, by way of the interpretation of the translators who wrote the KJV.

I don't have a Torah handy, maybe one of our Jewish pals will tell us if their Genesis story has God referring to Himself in the plural or not. It could very well be as EoIC says, a holdover from the royal pedigree of the KJV translation.

Never heard of the Royal 'We'? All Monarchs speak of themselves in the 3rd person plural

Then why doesn't he use the royal 'we' anywhere else in the bible? Why not 'We are a jealous god'?

Baker: I'd like to take a look at the Torah to see. I think that you're right, that it's a translation thing...but it's not just the KJV, all 3 versions that I have say the same thing.

Ted: Again, the NT was written thousands of years after the OT, so either the bible was tampered with (which I think is most likely) and can't really be literally interpreted as the word of god, or....well, I really don't know what else.

What it comes down to is faith. Faith that the sum of the whole meaning and purpose of the Bible is greater than it's chapters and verses divided and disected.

It is by faith that we hold our purpose. It is by faith that we believe. We do not know if we are right or wrong. All we know is that we shall have faith in the promises of Christ.

Faith is the strength by which a shattered world shall emerge into the light. - Helen Keller A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. - Arthur C. Clarke

They seemed appropriate.

Peace,

Beebes

Marcie... if we take the bible literally, we can't eat pork, or shellfish. We wouldn't have an established church. We have to marry the widows of our brothers etc... We also have to accept literally the book of Revelations, which makes 0 sense at all. Going with a literal interpretation is how you get the widest varrying interpretations because everyone likes to believe one passage is more important than another etc.

Boil it down to the basic concepts God is trying to get across, and there's almost NO varrying.

Ten Commandments. Probably the only really clear list of rules that isn't tossed out by Christ. But really, those are all rules on how to not be a dick (see above post). Love, peace and harmony is what Christ and God are trying to get across. Literal interpretation of the words is what muddies the pool, what adds the confusion and disagreement.

Ever heard the phrase "Can't see the forrest for the trees?" (or something like that). It means focusing on the minutia too closely makes you incapable of seeing the big picture. That's the problem so many people are having nowadays with religion. They latch on to the interpretation of the day, grasp it as if it is the last words of God spoken directly to them. They don't stop to think that throughout history, the book they have in their hands has been added to, had parts removed and changed all for the purpose of proving someone's point. We used to use the bible to justify burning heretics or witches. We used the literal interpretations to pick and choose justifications. We missed the point completely.

We went on Crusades due to selective reading of words to support a point.
We banned books and movies and justified it on selective words.
We pass judgement on one another and justify it through selective reading of words.

We completely and utterly miss the point.

If we go with a very literal translation... the story of Adam and Eve... The point can be proven that God made faith so complex because we couldn't accept something simple. Man is created in paradise, is lord of the world. Those two can do whatever they like and there's nothing bad to happen to them. They have one rule, one rule only. It's a simple rule, one that isn't hard to follow or understand. Don't eat the apple. Don't eat the apple. Man couldn't accept that simple rule... there must have been a trick... things can't be that easy... there's a catch, what's the catch? The catch was we had to forfeit the knowledge of Good and Evil. Well, there must be something to this knowledge... we had to have it. That knowledge had to unlock the rest of the secrets, cause this one-rule thing just didn't seem right.

One rule. We couldn't do it.
10 Rules. We still couldn't do it.
A friggin huge BOOK of rules. We still didn't get it.
Reset the whole thing and try to reintroduce the simple concept of Not Being a Dick. Didn't stick.

Every time we got a new ruleset, they were really supposed to replace the old ones. It was God going "Hrrm... ok, the previous approach didn't work... lets try something else" It was us, in our drive to complicate the world more than it needs to be.

A literal translation gives us a universe that was created in 6 days. By interpretation of those words, we should be the center of the universe.
A literal translation gives us a man, and a woman that then give birth to two sons. No daughters if I remember right. No genetic variation. Are we all inbred?
A literal translation gives us men who lived hundreds of years in a time before any modern medicine existed.
A literal translation would have us conducting animal sacrifices
A literal translation would have had the Second Coming of Christ a long long long time ago.

The points made through literal translation are completely and utterly secondary to the message of God. They don't matter one damn bit when you stack it up against the overriding point God attempts to make.

Love. Love God. Love yourself. Love thy neighbor and do everything within your power to make the world a better place for you and everyone else in it. You are loved by God. God wants you to succeed.

How important, really, is the argument of creationism vs darwinism in terms of faith, heaven and hell when you put it next to that message? Do the details matter anymore?

What it comes down to is faith

Some of it does, yes. Faith can be a very powerful thing...for instance, I canntell you that the sky is blue, but if you have faith that it's pink...then you'll see it as such. I was watching a show about the Shroud of Turin, and a theologian said, when questioned about the reaction the faithful would have to the Shroud being a fake "well, you could tell the faithful that it's a fake, but they have faith that it isn't....so it isn't" (paraphrased)

I'm happy for you that you have faith that your god and his son will redeem you. I don't have that faith. I have faith of a different kind.

Love, peace and harmony is what Christ and God are trying to get across. Literal interpretation of the words is what muddies the pool, what adds the confusion and disagreement.

Yes! Again, this is exactly what I think too. We've tied ourselves up in knots for years over the literal translation of the bible....a bible that's been interpreted so many times it's unreal.

Like I said, take a step back, look at the big picture, but most of all...don't be a dick. It's really that simple.

"Literal interpretation of the words is what muddies the pool, what adds the confusion and disagreement."

I disagree wholeheartedly. If fundamentalism and literalism is evil, then why aren't people railing against the Amish?

For once, for God's sake, I'd like to see someone point out that in addition to the crusades and all the other evils of the world, Bibile literalists have lived PEACEFULLY and cared for their neighbors and mankind as much as anyone else. The Bible, QUITE LITERALLY, also talks about love and charity and all the virtues we hold to be important.

The leadership of the Soviet Union killed more people in the purges than the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the witch trials combined. They burned books, they condemned people who differed with them... and... they were Athiests.

Please, folks stop pretending to dislike literalism or fundamentalism when own your opinions of them are literalist and fundamentalist. The crusades were wars of politics, economy, trade. Religion was an excuse. The same could be said for almost every other cruelty committed through the excuse of a literalist ideal.

The truth is, LITERALIST Christianity has been far more beneficial to the Western world than it has destructive. Religion in the last 2000 years has been abused, of course, but far less than it has bettered the billions that never burned a book or harmed their fellow man.

The Bible, QUITE LITERALLY, also talks about love and charity and all the virtues we hold to be important.

I understand that, but the point that I'm trying to make (I can't seak for Zoomba) is that often people get so caught up in trying to analyze the minutiae (much like I did in this article) that they lose sight of the big picture. Like the anti-homosexual briagde, for example. It seems sometimes that they've lost sight of the compassion, love and tolerance message of christianity and are focusing instead on hatred.

That's just my view....from the outside, rather than in.

Despite over 12 years of Catholic schooling, all I can come up with is that I try not to take the Bible seriously, especially the Old Testament parts.

All Monarchs speak of themselves in the 3rd person plural.

?????? that would be 'they'. 'we' (whether used in pluralis majestatis or not)is first person plural.

--I've heard that God is not only the Trinity...but that there is a Mother God, the "half" that is empathetic,and caring..then there is father god...which is the "other half"

Heh, this is part of the reason why I gave up. If the Bible can't get its act together, why should I have to?

Heh, this is part of the reason why I gave up. If the Bible can't get its act together, why should I have to?

--Another thing is, what if the bible is written clearly,but we,humans, are just too primative,ignorant,etc... to fully understand what i means...hmmm?

Heh, this is part of the reason why I gave up. If the Bible can't get its act together, why should I have to?

Well, that's one way of looking at it...

I've heard that God is not only the Trinity...but that there is a Mother God, the "half" that is empathetic,and caring..then there is father god...which is the "other half"

That's actually preety close to the way Gnostics look at it.....and that's one of my opinions about why 'we' and 'us' are used.

 

Despite over 12 years of Catholic schooling, all I can come up with is that I try not to take the Bible seriously, especially the Old Testament parts.

Yeah, no shit....

That's actually preety close to the way Gnostics look at it.....and that's one of my opinions about why 'we' and 'us' are used

--ahhh, its how my mom views it...as well as my sister,brother is atheist(i think,he and i have never discussed relgion,we have a better subject; video games/computers) everyone else in my family is either agnostic or catholic...i'm the "oddball" of the group in that i chose buddhism...they're all fine with it......