The Bible is the truth

[Michaelangelo]

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 ridiculous.

The source is the same. Don't confuse the literal presentation with the spiritual message, retold various ways.

You only call it ridiculous because you don't understand the message -- which is quite understandable as the message is presented in quite an archaic form compared to the mind-set of today.

Truth can be found in many places. Find the path that you can relate too. For some this is meditation, some attending church, and others, marriage. You will eventually find that the patterns & symbols of Truth are the same.

Peace

 

[Michaelangelo]

Exactly.
Your interpretation and my interpretation are different, which means they can't both be "100% true".

That's not true - One truth does not negate another truth!

Truth is NOT mutually exclusive.

Proof / Analogy:

http://www.eyetricks.com/0206.gif

If I see a picture of a Vase, and you see a picture of 2 faces... we are BOTH 100% correct.

Peace

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

The source is the same. Don't confuse the literal presentation with the spiritual message, retold various ways.

You only call it ridiculous because you don't understand the message -- which is quite understandable as the message is presented in quite an archaic form compared to the mind-set of today.

Truth can be found in many places. Find the path that you can relate too. For some this is meditation, some attending church, and others, marriage. You will eventually find that the patterns & symbols of Truth are the same.

Peace

Of course the source is the same; truth. However, a single passage doesn't necessarily apply to the whole. There are indeed places that must be read literally, and others figuratively. I call it rediculous not because I don't understand the message, but because you take such a narrow view concerning it. ALL to be taken figuratively? Folly.

As I said, there is some to be read literally, and some to be read figuratively, but all to be read spiritually. I do not confuse the literal with the spiritual, for the literal is spiritual, since the spiritual is literal, as well as is the figurative spiritual, but not because the spiritual is figurative, rather because the figurative appeals to the spiritual.

You're very quick to jump to conclusions about other people. You assume lack of understanding on my part. You assume conformation to the standard mindset of the day on my part. You assume I'm not already aware that the patterns and symbols of truth are the same. Truth can be found everywhere. It is only in the mind, which has no "where," that untruth resides. Untruth may be said to be found in books, but what is contained in books only has meaning to the understanding mind.

It is clear to me that you are well-studied, and wise in ways, but where I have found you to be lacking is in your assumptions. Take heed of this, and learn. For since you have so hastily judged me, so too have I taken it upon myself to give you reproof.

My way I walk, and I learn my way always.

 

[stretched]

Yo Michealangelo,

Thanks for your thoughtfull response. I have some more food for thought regarding the implications of confusion at large, and I understand different levels of perception. Believe it or not, I even know the taste of death, so my path inherently runs peacefully forward. One thing I can 100% agree with you on is that I can never walk in your shoes, and that you can never walk in mine. So even if our views may differ, a beautiful sunset is a glimpse of universal beauty. This we can share.

What do you consider your path Michealangelo?

Ahem.

 

[Michaelangelo]

Yo Michealangelo,
What do you consider your path Michealangelo?

Namaste Streched.

Why would you like to know? You have your own path to take.

I hesitate to answer, because I do not want to preach. You don't need anyone else to teach you - seek the True Prophet and you will find it. You've already had some special experiences. Use that opportunity to help others to see beyond this earth realm, and you will be helping yourself.

Or are you just curious? i.e. where ours will intersect, and we will travel together for a while?

Peace

 

[Michaelangelo]

Of course the source is the same; truth.

Where do you think Truth comes from?

However, a single passage doesn't necessarily apply to the whole. There are indeed places that must be read literally, and others figuratively. I call it rediculous not because I don't understand the message, but because you take such a narrow view concerning it. ALL to be taken figuratively? Folly.

I read the whole bible literally, and I also read the whole allegorically. I am working on reading the whole spiritually. Why do you think that is a narrow view?

Peace

 

[Michaelangelo]

Namaste Stretched

You would probably enjoy "The Recognitions of Clement", and "The Clementine Homilies" if you haven't already read them. They have a lot of good insights. (I particully enjoyed the former - TROC.)

http://www.compassionatespirit.com/Recognitions/Recognitions-TOC.htm

http://www.compassionatespirit.com/Homilies/Homilies-TOC.htm

Peace

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Where do you think Truth comes from?

Truth comes from Truth.

I read the whole bible literally, and I also read the whole allegorically. I am working on reading the whole spiritually. Why do you think that is a narrow view?

Peace

The view I deemed to be narrow was that which claimed that the Bible in its entirety was to be taken figuratively. Read it as you wish, it benefits you as such. However, to claim that it is to be taken wholly one way, as opposed to another, is narrow. Why? Because singular extremities are narrow. It is by encompassing as many angles as possible, and then leading into the extremities of those avenues that one's view gains depth. As you say, you have read the Bible in the different extremities, and I would deem a view taken from that reading to be otherwise than narrow. However, you revealed little by claiming that the Bible should be taken wholly as figurative, and THAT I deemed narrow.

 

[sideshowbob]

One truth does not negate another truth!
Truth is NOT mutually exclusive.

I did NOT say that one truth negates another truth.
What I said was that if there are two or more different interpretations, then they cannot both (all) be 100% true.

All of those who claim that the Bible is 100% true have different interpretations of what that truth is. Therefore, their interpretations cannot all be 100% true. In fact, it is likely that none of their interpretations is 100% true.

If I see a picture of a Vase, and you see a picture of 2 faces... we are BOTH 100% correct.

Wrong.
We have two different interpretations. In this specific example, we are both 50% correct.

 

[Red Devil]

If the bible were 100% true then it would be physically impossible for the earth to exist, or us inhabit it. Come on people, get real, the bible was written by man, amended by man and invented by man.

 

[lixluke]

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."

What in the world are you talking about?
You're equating two completely different Josephs.
Joseph and Judah were both sons of Jacob.
Heli is a direct descendant of Judah.
Heli also had a son named Joseph. The same name as Joseph, the brother of Heli's great ancestor, Judah.

In fact in the many many generations between Heli and his great ancestor, Judah, there was another Joseph.

Joseph's (Jo-#1) father is Heli.
Heli's great great etc... etc... grandfather is also named Joseph (Jo-#2).
Jo-#2's great great etc... etc... grandfather is named Judah.
Judah's brother is also named Joseph. Jo-#3.

Judah and Jo-#3 are sons of Jacob.

When you ask me who Joseph's father was, I assumed you were referring to Jo-#3, the son of Jacob, because Jo-#3 was a very well known prophet. His father Jacob also has a well known story.

Meanwhile, although Jo-#1 is the most popular Joseph because he was the father of Jesus, there wasn't that much told about him.
His father, Heli, and Jo-#2, were barely mentioned at all.

Some people tell me that the story of Jo-#3 is their favorite story in the whole bible. It's actually way more entertaining and intriguing than most of the other stories.


My question is, why would you assume that the fact that Jo-#1's father is Heli mean's that Jo-#3's father isn't Jacob?

the word "about" means that God himself is not exactly sure

Why would the word about mean that God isn't exactly sure?

 

[lixluke]

Sky:
so the point here is , if i do not agree to one phrase , the Bible is not 100%true

do not u think the question needs some space
********************
What space?
If you do not agree to one phrase, than obviously you would vote that it is not 100% true.
Isn't that enough?




cosmictraveler:
It is 100% true to those who believe in it and 100% false to those who don't.
********************
Why would not the trueness of the bible be independent of the people who do or do not believe it?




Hideki Matsumoto:
Cool skill has the black and white complex.
********************
You have a brain complex.
You don't even know what we are talking about.
Try a thread in the cesspool for your foolishness.




Q25:
"what do you think?"
********************
I think those types of sites are made by kindergarten dropouts with reading

comprehension problems.
Their nitpicky conclusions with no adherenvce to proper research procedures have no

educational validity.
There are a few people that can pose more well thought out arguments against the

validity of the bible that are worth debating.
Those sites have some information, but are motly nonsense.




sideshowbob:
All of those who claim that the Bible is 100% true have different interpretations of

what that truth is.
********************
How can you be so conceitedly sure that no two or more people might not have the exact same interpretation?

 

[Joeman]

What in the world are you talking about?
You're equating two completely different Josephs.

No no no no no. Not so fast. You are not BSing your way out of this one.

Lets try again.

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:

[comment: THIS JOSEPH that this passage is refering to is the father of Jesus CLEARLY STATED IN BIBLE. ARE YOU F-ING BLIND?]

the son of Heli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi.......

Joseph Is the son of Heli. That means the father of Joseph is Heli. The grandfather of Joseph according to both Matthew and Luke is Matthat. The difference is who his father is.

 

[sideshowbob]

How can you be so conceitedly sure that no two or more people might not have the exact same interpretation?

I don't know why you call it "conceited". I thought it was bloody obvious.

Do you know any two people who agree 100% about anything?

In case you didn't know, the Bible is extremely complex. It would be (almost) 100% impossible for 2 people to agree 100% about it.

But, in the interest of humility, let me rephrase my position:

Since it is (almost) 100% impossible for two people to have exactly the same interpretation of the Bible, it is (almost) 100% impossible for more than one person to have 100% of the truth.
And if one person thinks he alone has 100% of the truth, then he is the one who is conceited.​

Clear enough?

 

[stretched]

Hi Michealangelo,

Quote M:
"Or are you just curious? i.e. where ours will intersect, and we will travel together for a while?"

Yep. And I can always learn more. When do we know all there is to know? Sincere thanks for the links, I understand your path more clearly now.

Allcare.

 

[David F.]

I can't vote on this because there is no right answer. There are many known translation difficulties which make all English versions imperfect. Can I vote on the veracity of the original texts (at least as close as we have to the originals)?

 

[lixluke]

"No no no no no. Not so fast. You are not BSing your way out of this one.
THIS JOSEPH that this passage is refering to is the father of Jesus"


That's what I said.
I guess you didn't read what I said earlier.
cool skill: Joseph's (Jo-#1) father is Heli.
cool skill: Judah and Jo-#3 are sons of Jacob.

What is your whole point?
If I say Heli is the father of Jo-#1, why would you tell me I'm wrong, and say that Heli is the father of Jo-#1?

You're telling me I'm wrong, then correcting me by giving the same statement you said was wrong.


As far as I see, I can't find any difference in opinion:
Joeman: The father of Joseph (Jesus daddy) is Heli.
cool skill: The father of Joseph (Jesus daddy) is Heli. Furthermore, the father of a completely different well known Joseph in the bible (not Jesus daddy) is Jacob.


What are you saying?
Are you trying to tell me that given the father of Joseph (Jesus daddy) is Heli, therefore, the father of a completely different well known Joseph in the bible (not Jesus daddy) is NOT Jacob?

What exactly is it I'm trying to BS out of? You're making no sense.


You asked me who Joseph's father was.
I said that Joseph (not Jesus daddy)'s father was Jacob.
Everybody knows Joseph (not Jesus daddy)'s father was Jacob.

Then you start talking about Joseph (Jesus daddy) son of Heli which is a completely different Joseph.
What you are doing is switching Josephs.
I never said the father of Joseph (Jesus daddy) was Jacob.


1. If you are referring to the Joseph that is Jesus daddy: Joseph's father is Heli. Not Jacob.

2. If you are referring to the Joseph that is not Jesus daddy: Joseph's father is Jacob. Not Heli.

Pick a Joseph and shut the hell up.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

cool skill: "No no no no no. Not so fast. You are not BSing your way out of this one. THIS JOSEPH that this passage is refering to is the father of Jesus"

That's what I said. I guess you didn't read what I said earlier.
cool skill: Joseph's (Jo-#1) father is Heli.
cool skill: Judah and Jo-#3 are sons of Jacob.

What is your whole point? If I say Heli is the father of Jo-#1, why would you tell me I'm wrong, and say that Heli is the father of Jo-#1?

You're telling me I'm wrong, then correcting me by giving the same statement you said was wrong.

As far as I see, I can't find any difference in opinion:
Joeman: The father of Joseph (Jesus daddy) is Heli.
cool skill: The father of Joseph (Jesus daddy) is Heli. Furthermore, the father of a completely different well known Joseph in the bible (not Jesus daddy) is Jacob.

What are you saying? Are you trying to tell me that given the father of Joseph (Jesus daddy) is Heli, therefore, the father of a completely different well known Joseph in the bible (not Jesus daddy) is NOT Jacob?

What exactly is it I'm trying to BS out of? You're making no sense.

You asked me who Joseph's father was. I said that Joseph (not Jesus daddy)'s father was Jacob. Everybody knows Joseph (not Jesus daddy)'s father was Jacob.

Then you start talking about Joseph (Jesus daddy) son of Heli which is a completely different Joseph. What you are doing is switching Joseph's. I never said Joseph's (Jesus daddy) was Jacob.

1. If you are referring to the Joseph that is Jesus daddy: Joseph's father is Heli. Not Jacob.

2. If you are referring to the Joseph that is not Jesus daddy: Joseph's father is Jacob. Not Heli. Pick a Joseph and shut the hell up.
*************
M*W: Allow me to jump into the fray. "Heli" is another name for the "sun." It could also mean someone who is from the Egyptian City of Heliopolis.

Firstly, according to the book Stranger in the Valley of the Kings, by Ahmed Osman, about Joseph, I quote:

"Moses remained in Egyptian memory also by the name of Osarseph, a priest of Heliopolis, which links him with vizier Joseph, the Patriarch who brought the tribe of Israel down to Egypt, whom I have identified as Yuya, Akhenaten's (Moses') maternal grandfather."

In the book, Moses and Akhenaten: The Secret History of Egypt at the Time of the Exodus, by Ahmed Osman, states:

"I regard Yuya (Joseph), Queen Tiye's father, as being the Patriach Joseph, of the coat of many colours, who brought the tribe of Israel from Canaan to dwell in Egypt."

My comments on the above: Queen Tiye was also Moses' mother. Does this mean tht Joseph (Yuya) was Moses' father? The Egyptians had many names and titles, was Amenhotep IV another name for Joseph, the vizier? Was Tuthmosis IV the grandfather of Moses? Also indicated by Ahmed Osman is that Moses' sister Miriam was also considered to be his mother -- Queen Tiye. It gets very confusing because they called themselves different names and titles at different times.

In regard to Jacob by the same author:

"As a result of occupying his high position, Joseph was able to obtain permission for his father Jacob (Israel) and the tribe of Israel to come down from Canaan anad live in Egypt."

"There are two sources for the misunderstanding. In the first place, the scribe who wrote down the Book of Exodus was faced with two traditions -- that the mother of Moses was an Israelite and that she was b-t Phar'a literally 'the house of Pharaoh'. Unaware, as she had already been omitted from the Joseph story in the Book of Genesis, that Joseph had a daughter named Tiye, who became Pharaoh's wife, he resolved this initial difficulty by creating two mothers, one Hebrew, who gave birth to Moses, and one royal, who adopted him and brought him up as her son. That he chose to identify this adoptive mother as a princess rather than a queen has a philological explanation."

My comment: It was common in those days for brothers to marry sisters and fathers to impregnate daughters to keep the bloodlines royal.

 

[David F.]

As far as I see, I can't find any difference in opinion:
Joeman: The father of Joseph (Jesus daddy) is Heli.
cool skill: The father of Joseph (Jesus daddy) is Heli. Furthermore, the father of a completely different well known Joseph in the bible (not Jesus daddy) is Jacob.

The KJV bible isn't all that clear about this. IMHO Luke 2:23 should read:

23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed of Joseph), of Heli,
24 of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi...​

There is no word "son" in the Greek text, and I think most if not all bible scholars agree with this. There is no paranthesis in Greek - they were added by the translators. I have expanded the part in paranthesis to where IMO it should be as well as taking out the repeated word "son" which does not belong. Taking the part in parathesis out gives:

"Jesus of Heli of Matthat of Levi of Melchi..."​

which simply means Heli was Jesus' closest male ancestor. This is the ancestory of Mary, not Joseph and I am pretty sure that bible scholars agree, Heli was the father of Mary. I don't think anything I have done changes the meaning of the scripture at all. Look in Matthew 1 for the ancestory of Joseph.

15 And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Elazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
16 and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.​

The Greek word "egennatha" which means begat or fathered is actually used here so this is the lineage of Jesus' adopted father Joseph.

Both the Patriarch, Joseph, which went as a slave to Egypt and the adopted father of Jesus, Joseph, had a father named Jacob (although the partriarch changed his name from Jacob to Israel).

 

[Michaelangelo]

I did NOT say that one truth negates another truth.
What I said was that if there are two or more different interpretations, then they cannot both (all) be 100% true.

Do you not understand the difference between literal, allegorical, and spiritual understanding? Different interpretations, and they may be all 100% True.

We have two different interpretations. In this specific example, we are both 50% correct.

Correctness != Completeness.

How can you be 50% TRUE?

Is your wife pregnant? 50% no?

Peace