The Bible is the truth
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
When you say "Is it true?" you should first be asking what the truth of the bible is.
I think the whole of the purpose of the bible can be summed up by the first commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
The me in that commandment is pretty important. That me has a voice. That me is the God of the bible. The same me was present in Jesus' mouth. The same voice. The same God. When believers come to faith, the Holy Spirit who also is that same me, indwells within the believer and teaches that believer about God and what God wants from us. What God wants from us is pretty simple. Love God with all your being and then (like it) love your neighbour as yourself. The more one learns to have faith in the voice of that me the more one loves God for being faithful. Reading the bible helps me to see that me very clearly. If there are any textual discrepancies, for me at any rate, it does not detract from the power in the voice of that me. To that me I repeat the Lord's Prayer of "Our Father..."
The God of the bible is 100% true in my own eyes. The bible points to him in the way a pirates map points to the treasure. Once you have the treasure, the details in the map seems of less importance. Jesus' heart for man is the treasure I found. God's heart for man.
peace
c20
I think the whole of the purpose of the bible can be summed up by the first commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
The me in that commandment is pretty important. That me has a voice. That me is the God of the bible. The same me was present in Jesus' mouth. The same voice. The same God. When believers come to faith, the Holy Spirit who also is that same me, indwells within the believer and teaches that believer about God and what God wants from us. What God wants from us is pretty simple. Love God with all your being and then (like it) love your neighbour as yourself. The more one learns to have faith in the voice of that me the more one loves God for being faithful. Reading the bible helps me to see that me very clearly. If there are any textual discrepancies, for me at any rate, it does not detract from the power in the voice of that me. To that me I repeat the Lord's Prayer of "Our Father..."
The God of the bible is 100% true in my own eyes. The bible points to him in the way a pirates map points to the treasure. Once you have the treasure, the details in the map seems of less importance. Jesus' heart for man is the treasure I found. God's heart for man.
peace
c20
c20H25N3o said:
But Jesus said, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Mat. 22:37-40)
Apparently, what you think doesn't coincide with what Jesus thought.
How, then, can you claim to believe 100% of the Bible?
sideshowbob said:
Do you not see how "Thou shalt have no other God's before me" is a voice which says "Love me with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind"? It clearly is one and the same thing. The second commandment that Jesus left, He said was like it i.e. love thy neighbour as thyself.
Now what does this mean? Well simply it means ...
Take your faith in God (if you have any) and love what you see Him to be. For most God is love. Everyone loves love. The bible says God is love. We develop our relationship with God through understanding what love is and specifically God's love for us. It is evident if the bible is to be believed that God would indeed become a human sin offering for humans in the flesh i.e. through Jesus. We can see therefore that no matter what we might have done that would prevent us from life eternal with God, God would find a way to bring us back to Him if this is what we desired. Now in Jesus I see God and I love Jesus. I cannot describe to you how vividly I see the spirit of the man but anyway I love him, I desire to be like him, to think like him etc etc. I want to reflect back his love to others but first I must love him and want to grow to be like Him. As I learn more about who God is, I learn more about the creature that was made in His image i.e. us. So the more I love Him, the more I want to love us as though we are all a part of Him. The more we love eachother the more we see the Christ with God at the head. This for me is the Holy People, a people who love God first and then love eachother with the same passion as they love themselves. This is probably easier to put into context when you consider Jesus said that to enter the Kingdom of Heaven one had to enter it like a child i.e. trusting in their fathers' love.
peace
c20
c20H25N3o said:
Exactly.
It's a similie, a figure of speech, which means that it's open to interpretation.
Your interpretation and my interpretation are different, which means they can't both be "100% true". Are you saying that your interpretation is 100% true and mine isn't?
No rational person can deny that there are some truths - e.g. historical or geographical - in the Bible. Therefore, nobody really believes the Bible is 100% false.
Similarly, nobody believes the Bible is 100% true because there is no definitive "the Bible". Every translation has imperfections because the translations were done by man. Since we have no perfect version of the Bible, most of it is open to interpretation and those interpretations can be different.
When you say that you believe 100% of the Bible, you really mean that you believe 100% of your interpretation of the Bible. That's hardly surprizing, is it?
whats the point of the ten commandments, when they are not adhered to., by jesus or it's daddy.
Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.--2 Chr.15:13
“He that believeth not, shall be damned”Mark 16:16
this means the 2/3 who follow another religious or non-religious.
the commandments
the first five, bring us the contradiction that is 6, 7 though 10 back again.
what ever you do your dead,! nice.
Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.--2 Chr.15:13
“He that believeth not, shall be damned”Mark 16:16
this means the 2/3 who follow another religious or non-religious.
the commandments
the first five, bring us the contradiction that is 6, 7 though 10 back again.
what ever you do your dead,! nice.
cool skill said:
Wrong!!!
Luke 3:23
"Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli."
So Joseph's father is Heli according to Luke. Also according to Jewish historian Flavious Josephus, Jesus began his ministry in 15th year of Tiberius Caeser, that makes him 29 years old. Luke says he is "about" 30 years old. That means he is not quite correct, and the word "about" means that God himself is not exactly sure, since the bible is exact word of God as you Christians claim it to be.
sideshowbob said:
Did you not read the part about the Holy Spirit being sent to those who called on the name of Jesus? The Holy Spirit is not some make believe nonsense. He is real. It is not my interpretation. He is actually real. I am a witness to Him.
peace
c20
pavlosmarcos said:
It basically means that whoever was so hard in heart that they flatly refused to seek God in anyway given the chance, ought be given what they want i.e. seperation from God i.e. Death. Life is a precious gift. I want it to go on. I believe Jesus is the Son of God and I believe him when He says he will freely grant eternal life to those who ask Him. I believe in Jesus because His life tells me a lot. His ressurection tells me a whole lot more besides. There is a point to living a life that pleases God. I believe all will be judged. I do not want to be accused of having hardened my heart towards my creator. That would not be good in my eyes.
peace
c20
Unless the Holy Spirit whispered the exact meaning of every word of the Bible into your ear... then, yes, it is just your interpretation.c20H25N3o said:
Are you so conceited as to think that the Holy Spirit interpreted the exact Truth only to you? Other people, who have a different interpretation of the Bible also believe the Holy Spirit spoke to them.
I'm not saying the Holy Spirit didn't speak the Truth. I'm saying that different people hear "the Truth" differently. Therefore, different "Truths", even if they all originated with the Holy Spirit, can not all be 100% true.
sideshowbob said:
The Holy Spirit I find to be consistent in His teaching. I am not conceited as you claim. Please find me a born again believer who would not agree with me about the love of God, a born again believer who confesses Jesus as Lord. I think you will find that the Holy Spirit convicts them of truth in the same way He convicts me of truth. The Holy Spirit is God. He does not have a different set of truths to suit the individual. Truth is consistent. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life." Jesus was consistent.
peace
c20
Last edited:
But the four people (so far) who voted that the Bible is 100% true have four different versions of what the truth is. I think you will find that the four of you do not agree on every single detail of the Bible. If there is any disagreement among the four of you, then you can't all be 100% correct.c20H25N3o said:
Yes, but you do not have a perfect understanding of the truth.
I didn't mean to imply that you are conceited in general. But it is a conceit to believe that you understand something perfectly, even if the Holy Spirit explained it to you perfectly.
If your understanding is imperfect and the other three also have an imperfect understanding, then you cannot honestly say you belive 100% of the Bible. In fact, you believe 100% of what you think the Bible says.
That's what I was trying to convey, but maybe it's too fine a distinction for this discussion.
Michaelangelo
Registered Member
The person asking this question doesn't understand the purpose of the bible.
The bible is NOT meant to be read literally. It even says so itself...
Gal 4:21-24 "These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants."
If you do {read it literally}, you will find there are numerous literal contradictions throughout. You should ask yourself why would God allow a corrupted compilation of text?
Moreover, does it _really_ matter if a story is true, if you understand the moral of the story?
Peace
The bible is NOT meant to be read literally. It even says so itself...
Gal 4:21-24 "These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants."
If you do {read it literally}, you will find there are numerous literal contradictions throughout. You should ask yourself why would God allow a corrupted compilation of text?
Moreover, does it _really_ matter if a story is true, if you understand the moral of the story?
Peace
Michaelangelo said:
That doesn't say the entire bible is not to be taken literally. I think you are taking things out of context. The bible has been read literally through the ages, and author intended people to read them literally unless there are contextual evidence that allows allegorical interpretation.
God didn't. The whole concept of Cannon is human invention. The day that all scriptures were made into a single book is the day the bible died. The five criteria of Cannon which people used to determine divine inspiration were human inventions.
Unfortunately the morals in the bible are neither profound nor good.
Yo Michealangelo and welcome,
It seems that the Bible was taken so literally a couple of hundred years ago that witches were not suffered to live. Hundreds of innocent poeple died at the hand of so called rightous inquisitors. And you say the Bible is non-literal? So does the holy spirit alter the interpretation of Christians on a whim.
"Moreover, does it _really_ matter if a story is true, if you understand the moral of the story?"
Integrity is integrity is integrity.
Ahem.
You say: "If you do {read it literally}, you will find there are numerous literal contradictions throughout. You should ask yourself why would God allow a corrupted compilation of text?"
You should indeed ask yourself this question. The fact is, there are contradictions and absurdities in the Bible. It seems perhaps, that god was not even involved in his book.
It seems that the Bible was taken so literally a couple of hundred years ago that witches were not suffered to live. Hundreds of innocent poeple died at the hand of so called rightous inquisitors. And you say the Bible is non-literal? So does the holy spirit alter the interpretation of Christians on a whim.
"Moreover, does it _really_ matter if a story is true, if you understand the moral of the story?"
Integrity is integrity is integrity.
Ahem.
You say: "If you do {read it literally}, you will find there are numerous literal contradictions throughout. You should ask yourself why would God allow a corrupted compilation of text?"
You should indeed ask yourself this question. The fact is, there are contradictions and absurdities in the Bible. It seems perhaps, that god was not even involved in his book.
Michaelangelo
Registered Member
1) How do you know the author intended them to be read literally? What proof is this based on?Joeman said:
2) Do you really need each allegory explicitly spelt out for you? C'mon - you're smarter then that. But just because you don't understand the allegory, does not mean there are others who don't.
*Every* story in the bible can be read in a 3 fold manner:
i) Literally,
ii) Allegorical, and
iii) Spiritually.
Define "all scriptures"? Do you mean the sub-set that was cannonized?
Peace
Michaelangelo
Registered Member
Namaste.stretched said:
Do you believe it is only strictly literally true? If so, why does it say it isn't?
If you believe it is not only literal, the point stands.
In any case, the bible is not ONLY literally true. It contains literal falsehoods, but that does not diminish the allegorical meaning.
Interpretation is just that - interpretation. It's not absolute. It's a level of understanding.
I take it you have never had the holy spirit reveal any greater truths to you?
So you're saying that your level of understanding {of the Bible} never changes or deepens? What about the rest of those people who understand more over time?
Whether a person is Christian is irrelevant, if they understand something more {about the Bible} then they did before. Christians don't have a monopoly on Truth. (Thank-God!)
Peace
Hiya Michaelangelo,
Ahhh. I am with you now. I absolutely have had truths revealed (or rather "known") to me, but I could never put a name on their origin like "holy ghost".
I think that God, if we could for a moment assume there is indeed a God, would not create confusion, just as I would not willfully confuse my son. So if the Bible is the message of this god, would the message not be spelt out plainly for all to see, both educated and uneducated? So a literal approach could concieveably be the better option. My view is however that the Bible is simply another tome in the ongoing mythology created by mankind. My level of understanding regarding the Bible is open to change, but thusfar I am dissapointed and greatly question its morality.
Quote:
"Whether a person is Christian is irrelevant, if they understand something more {about the Bible} then they did before. Christians don't have a monopoly on Truth. (Thank-God!)"
As you said, thank god!
Ahem.
Ahhh. I am with you now. I absolutely have had truths revealed (or rather "known") to me, but I could never put a name on their origin like "holy ghost".
I think that God, if we could for a moment assume there is indeed a God, would not create confusion, just as I would not willfully confuse my son. So if the Bible is the message of this god, would the message not be spelt out plainly for all to see, both educated and uneducated? So a literal approach could concieveably be the better option. My view is however that the Bible is simply another tome in the ongoing mythology created by mankind. My level of understanding regarding the Bible is open to change, but thusfar I am dissapointed and greatly question its morality.
Quote:
"Whether a person is Christian is irrelevant, if they understand something more {about the Bible} then they did before. Christians don't have a monopoly on Truth. (Thank-God!)"
As you said, thank god!
Ahem.
Michaelangelo said:
Just a quick word on this. You have quoted one passage from one letter of the Bible. Namely, you quoted from the Epistle to the Galatians. Unless you believe that the author of every book in the Bible is the same, (not speaking of the HS) or that none of the books themselves had multiple authors, you can't really assert that by simply quoting from one passage from one letter, and really, from one author, all of the authors of every book and letter that make up the entirety of the Bible meant the same thing. That is rediculous. Certainly, there is much in the Bible meant to be read figuratively, metaphorically, but there is much also to be read literally, and ALL to be read spiritually (I believe). It is a matter of careful, attentive study (not simply reading), which reveals just what is literal and what is not. I certainly couldn't tell you just where all such cases are to be found, and I haven't spent my time in that persuit. This is why I trust those who have spent their time in such persuit, BECAUSE they HAVE done the careful study.
As to the question of the Gnostic Gospels, I say this: None have been dated any earlier than the 2nd century. For this I find no reason in concluding that they bear any more truth to the event than the others. Furthermore, not all of them are gnostic. Even so, those that were gnostic certainly wouldn't have been accepted by the Jews, the Gnostic Thought having a much older history in paganism, than simply arising out of that era. Yet, even the Bible contains hints of Gnosticism, in John. The Gnostics believed in the Logos, (Word) which John spoke of in His Gospel. So, while some may point to the Gnostic Gospels and say, "they're the truth! not the Bible!" They miss the point of fact that the Church included John, which had undertones of gnosticism. Hence, the Gnostic Gospels were discarded for other reasons. The Christian Church, throughout the centuries, has taken upon itself MANY MANY pagan practices, traditions, and beliefs, the Gnostic Tradition included. However, in doing so, the Christian Church also discarded much of those different religions, electing that within each which it deemed to be sourced in truth. If the Gnostic Gospels were thrown out, it was for the reason that it contained that which was considered untruth. It is a matter, entirely, of speculation, as to whether those Gospels indicate the falsity of Christianity. Why? Because there is NO way to know the minds of the people who discarded them, except by what reason was given, that being that they saw untruth in them. Furthermore, there is no way to know who the authors of those texts were, for certain, nor who and why they were hidden. We can speculate all we want, but as I said... it IS a matter of speculation. Running around spouting the truth of the Gnostic Gospels against those chosen by Christianity, is simply obtuse, since such assertions are based in unseemly speculation, especially made incredulous by the dating of those texts as further from the event they outline than those chosen by the Church. Sure, you may try to strengthen your claim by railing against Paul, but again, about Paul we may only speculate. I have researched (mildly) materials that speak against Paul, and what I researched was dubious, at best. I have found no reason to uphold the Gnostic Gospels, nor any reason to downcast the letters of Paul. Undoubtedly, there is truth contained in the "Gnostic Gospels" as well as falsity in Paul, the man. However, there are also falsities contained in the Gnostic Gospels, as seen by the Christian Church, which I would trust much more than a few obscure, and latterly-written texts. As for Paul, I judge him not as a man, for I am no Saint. As for his works, if he and Peter had conflict, it was resolved, for letters from both are contained in the Bible, even to the point of paradox. Hence, it is seemly that those paradoxical texts be read with a discerning eye, and studious mind, to know why both were contained, when seemingly contradictory. I know that the Bible wasn't entirely composed by Paul, nor compiled by him. What reason have I to distrust those who compiled the Bible, even if I did have reason to distrust Paul? No, the Gnostic Gospels mean little to me, as far as the Bible is concerned. I'm sure they have some good truths, but I would not allow them the full tilt of my trust.
Hmm.... this should have gone in a different thread. Oh well...
Michaelangelo
Registered Member
stretched said:
I concur. I don't care for the bastardization of "holy ghost" either. Maybe a better word would be Consciousness. God has many names. Pick one that you can relate to. Infinity isn't bound to just one name.
Let me give you an analogy, since someone before hasn't shown you a deeper understanding of what "evil" is, and why it exists ...
You indirectly DID create your son's confusion. He wouldn't be here if it wasn't for you.
When you assume confusion is ONLY a bad thing, that is a very narrow way of looking at the world. You allow your son to make his own choices, and make his own mistakes, right? He has his own life to live, and has to learn the consequences of his actions. Yes, in the short term he will go thru pain (and every parent wishes he wouldn't have to), but in long run, the end result is that your son will grow in the process much faster when he makes mistakes, then the alternative if he is not allowed any choices whatsoever. Would you rather condemn your son to being an automaton, with no free will whatsoever? What's the point of him having a mind then, if he is never allowed to use it?
So on one level, mistakes are bad, but on a higher level they serve a usefull purpose.
It's the same thing when you tell your children "Don't touch. It's hot"
If they NEVER touch any hot, they will have NO understand & reference to what "hot" really means.
If this sounds like gnosis, it is.
You *never* truely understand something, until you *do* it.
Actually, that's the worse approach for 2 reasons:
1) The Bible is written multi-dimensionally to help a person understand a spiritual path (They all meet.) The Letter of the Law is fine for children, but the Spirit of the Law is meant for adults. By doing the physical, you come to understand the spiritual.
i.e.
Baby: It's bedtime. {baby goes to sleep}
Child: It's bedtime. {child questions Why} So you will be able to get up on time tomorrow for school, work, etc.
Adult: The person understands the consequences of staying up late, and thus can for themselves, decide when to break the rules.
If something is written strictly literally, how will they understand the spirit of the Law? Especially if they never do it?
2) Most people are completly unable to comprehend the higher realities, because it is NOT describable in words.
I've had experiences that I can not relate to others - there is no vocab to describe them. The *only* way for you to even come close understand what I'm talking about, is for you to have the same experiences.
Ask anyone who has had a Near-Death-Experience, or Out-Of-Body experience to "PLAINLY" describe their experience. You'll get laughed at, for suggesting such nonsense.
Agnostics are perfectly justified in the their beliefs, for they haven't experience anything to the contrary, but they have no foundation to comment on someone else experiences, especially when they have never had them.
Would you want to ask an agnostic what being Dead is like? Or would you want to talk to someone who was dead for 27 minutes, woke up in the morgue, and had zero brain damage? (Dannion Brinkely is quite the interesting person to talk & listen to!)
Good! You are able to see that "If you want to understand the Bible, first throw it out."
Keep seeking. You are on the right path. It is "right for you", because you are the only one walking it; no one else has the right to tell you to walk a different path, for they are not you.
Peace