Bible contradictions
- Thread starter w1z4rd
- Start date
To such brains every metaphor their preferred authority utters hides deep explanations and profound truths.
It’s like any art: The observer projects upon it whatever meanings it needs to find there.
If the artist is talented he guides the observer with his symbolisms – gathered from common reference points – if he is clever he simply gains notoriety or respect and his every line and curve becomes a profound insinuation.
I suspect that most of the time the observer finds things in a piece of art that the artist, himself, never intended.
In the case of the Bible it uses the technique the oracles of Delphi used.
Their language is cryptic and metaphorical to a degree where the meanings are projected upon them by the listener who is taken by the oracles authority status and cultural significance.
Nostradamus used a similar method for his “predictions”.
It’s like any art: The observer projects upon it whatever meanings it needs to find there.
If the artist is talented he guides the observer with his symbolisms – gathered from common reference points – if he is clever he simply gains notoriety or respect and his every line and curve becomes a profound insinuation.
I suspect that most of the time the observer finds things in a piece of art that the artist, himself, never intended.
In the case of the Bible it uses the technique the oracles of Delphi used.
Their language is cryptic and metaphorical to a degree where the meanings are projected upon them by the listener who is taken by the oracles authority status and cultural significance.
Nostradamus used a similar method for his “predictions”.
NO. I learned about Crucifixion (this one) from watching movies, I was going to change it but left it in to give you something to bitch about.
You guys are going to get me to go out and buy a bible for studying-this is the most interesting topic i have come across on SciFoums. Keep spreading the word.
That's a generalization John99.
'Free will' yourself back from the dead.
'Free will' yourself flight off a mountain.
'Free will' that arm that you lost in an accident, to grow back.
Go tell all the women in the Islamic state countries that they have free will.
The 'Free will' you are talking about is free will to either choose God/Jesus, or spend an eternity in hell. You can doctor up what free will means all you want, but in essence, that's what it boils down to.
I am responding to geesers creative interpretation, free will as in the executioner posses free will...up untill the very end.
I wasn't trying to discount your statement, but it was a generalization. In this context, we do have free will, as in that we have the freedom to make choices. We do not have free will in the total sense of the phrase.
Let me make a case for you. What about the scripture in the Bible, 'Ask and ye shall receive'. Really? What if I prayed for a million bucks and a harem of supermodels? Will it happen? Nope. But the scripture says' Ask and ye shall recieve.
Is there more to asking and recieving than just that one phrase? Of course, just like there's way more to 'free will' than just "Oooooh, we have free will to do whatever we want" (which is the way it sounded as you posted it).
Last edited:
1. You should have quoted geezer so we would know where you were coming from/going with it. <--my bad for misinterpreting your statement.
If you were talking about free will in that sense, then yes, I agree with you there. If Jesus wanted to commit suicide, he could have found many many other ways to do it. I don't think the crucifiction (if it did indeed happen) was an attempt at suicide by Jesus.
And yes I will spin it. I can spin it to where it can be viewed as just as correct and sensible as you put it; as we both of us have so shown.
"There's more than one way to skin a cat". There's more than one way to view 'free will'. Do you not agree?
Matthew 5:17-19, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one little shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 19:16-19 (Mark 10:17,19) (Luke 18:18,20), ". . . Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him . . . if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments . . .
Luke 10:25-28, ". . . Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy G-d with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind: and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him. Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."
Romans 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Likewise. But I'm not an athiest, I'm agnostic (as my screenname should have so indicated). There is a difference. If you're not here to view athiest beliefs as a weakness, then why did you even mention that it's a weakness?
That statement sounds like it's exactly why you're here.
Shouldn't one with an unbiased point of view said something more to the effect of 'I'm not the one here who views anyone's beliefs as a weakness.'?
Now you understand. Jesus fufilled the law..."concluded" is used by another scripture. No hed didn't destroy it...New Commands were created.
And note: that Jesus' death concluded the law covenant not he's presence on the Earth alone. It was a sign of change. The Isrealites were released from their appointed service to God.
God therein opened up his service to all the people of the nations. Jesus followers were instructed to "GO therefore and preach to the whole inhabited Earth,"
Jesus told these gentleman no wrong by following the commandants. The purpose of the Law was to show that they were sinning." It will always hold truth.
This is not interpretation. It's progress. As you read forward through the bible chronologically one can see that the Law was being used to abuse the Jewish people by the Pharisies "The reglious leaders" The Law had become a burdeon.
It is the natural instinct of the weakling and the imbecile to suppose that (s)he is already in possession of what (s)he most lacks.
For instance the most fearful will believe he is courageous and the least free will believe himself free-willed.
In these cases the appearance of choice, albeit limited, will become proof enough that they are in control over their own Becoming.
That idiots in the west, for decades, used the limited choices in material wealth in the former Soviet Union as evidence of their own liberty points to a human predisposition to assume one’s own superiority or special status without having to earn it.
For instance that a moron can choose between chicken or fish constitutes for him evidence of his free-will when he cannot abstain from choosing at all.
Here we see a forced choice being used to support the illusion of one’s own freedom.
The basic fact that all life needs or is subject to the universal laws of temporality, we call the flux, makes any product of this flux dependant on it and struggling for independence – which is another way of describing the absolute.
The costs of freedom, of course, are numerous and many choose to avoid considering them.
For instance the notion of absolute freedom, independence, insinuates a solitude and self-determination (self-responsibility) that most are terrified by, since most prefer to blame something else for their own condition.
Existence, itself, is a concept describing a condition of dependence and so any hypothesis of freedom must include the idea of independence or inertia and inactivity or the absence of a temporal signature; in essence a description of non-existence.
The only thing that can imagine itself free is the human imagination which takes itself as a template (self-awareness) and project it into a hoped for, idealized absolute extreme.
In fact what is often meant by freedom is the independence from nature or the universe within which we are necessitated as products of temporal flux. We imagine ourselves outside the very thing that makes us possible, into a hypothetical ‘beyond’ or the ‘superior’ which is sometimes called ‘God’.
The basic test of free-will is this:
Is need dependant or independent?
If it is dependant then the will is never free, for freedom is the absence of all dependence and would make the will unfocused and unnecessary.
Life is need animated and directed, by a Will, towards its finality or impossible/improbable completion – in essence it is a death wish.
Need is temporality or the flux made conscious of itself – suffering being an extreme case of need.
For instance the most fearful will believe he is courageous and the least free will believe himself free-willed.
In these cases the appearance of choice, albeit limited, will become proof enough that they are in control over their own Becoming.
That idiots in the west, for decades, used the limited choices in material wealth in the former Soviet Union as evidence of their own liberty points to a human predisposition to assume one’s own superiority or special status without having to earn it.
For instance that a moron can choose between chicken or fish constitutes for him evidence of his free-will when he cannot abstain from choosing at all.
Here we see a forced choice being used to support the illusion of one’s own freedom.
The basic fact that all life needs or is subject to the universal laws of temporality, we call the flux, makes any product of this flux dependant on it and struggling for independence – which is another way of describing the absolute.
The costs of freedom, of course, are numerous and many choose to avoid considering them.
For instance the notion of absolute freedom, independence, insinuates a solitude and self-determination (self-responsibility) that most are terrified by, since most prefer to blame something else for their own condition.
Existence, itself, is a concept describing a condition of dependence and so any hypothesis of freedom must include the idea of independence or inertia and inactivity or the absence of a temporal signature; in essence a description of non-existence.
The only thing that can imagine itself free is the human imagination which takes itself as a template (self-awareness) and project it into a hoped for, idealized absolute extreme.
In fact what is often meant by freedom is the independence from nature or the universe within which we are necessitated as products of temporal flux. We imagine ourselves outside the very thing that makes us possible, into a hypothetical ‘beyond’ or the ‘superior’ which is sometimes called ‘God’.
The basic test of free-will is this:
Is need dependant or independent?
If it is dependant then the will is never free, for freedom is the absence of all dependence and would make the will unfocused and unnecessary.
Life is need animated and directed, by a Will, towards its finality or impossible/improbable completion – in essence it is a death wish.
Need is temporality or the flux made conscious of itself – suffering being an extreme case of need.
Matthew 5:17-19, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one little shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
Will you then be called least or called great in the kingdom of heaven? Do you break the commandment not to work on the sabbath every single week? Do you even teach others to do so as well?
But all the believers' sins are forgiven, pretty cool.