Contradictions in the bible

[Just Dave]

So the bible the world reads today is fake?

Edit : Well if you believe that a man can split sea in half and listening to burning bushs talk or giant hands in the sky .... yep 100% just a fairytale with huge amount of power behind it... oh dont forget the bloodshed

Edited January 4, 2013 by Nuke_em

[GoldenWolf]

God has nothing to with what happens to people. Those who see in the Bible a god exterminating people it is because they do not understand metaphorical language. They are the members of the literal interpretation club. I bet you believe in talking serpents don't you? See what I mean?

Ben

Try astrology, http://www.constellationsofwords.com/Constellations/Serpens.html

[Doug1029]

I haven't read of any research that supports any story in the Bible being literally true. Even if a story is based on a real story and reworked to fit in the Bible, that doesn't make it true. That makes it a fictional adaptation, like a movie that claims to be "based on real events".

If you break the story down into its component elements, you can see where the stories came from. The "Red Sea" was, at most, six feet deep at the ford where "Moses" crossed it. It's a real place and the legends describe a real, still occurring phenomenon. And while I think the story of the crossing is that of an Egyptian work gang that got caught by the waves, the overall story presented in the Bible is a little different. But the real story is in there: you just have to do some digging to get it out. The Bible presents a legend superimposed on history - "historical fiction," if you please.

In Against Apion, Josephus describes a "ficticious" Pharaoh as Moses' protagonist. Only one Pharaoh fits that description - Seti I. The legends are right about there being a confrontation involving religion, but I doubt that the details given in the Bible are an accurate account. At any rate, there was a slave revolt at Avaris in about 1308 BC and, in cooperation with their supporters from Jerusalem, they "despoiled the Egyptians." The Bible implies that it was a short-lived event on the way out of town, but it seems that for about thirteen years, Piramesse/Avaris was ruled by "Hyksos descendents." I think it likely that those same "Hyksos descendents" were the ones who appropriated the Hyksos king list to be "Moses" genealogy.

There are countless stories in the Mideast about a wandering magician with a magic staff. One version of that story appears in the Bible. The history is that there really was a wandering magician with a staff. "Moses" went around the Sinai beating up on rocks and creating springs. How do you dig a well? You "strike the rock." The Waters of Meribah are five wells. Nobody knows who actually dug them, but the Bible says it was "Moses." There really was a wandering magician/soothsayer with a staff and those wells exist to this day; that part is fact. The legend is the account of how that happened. The legend has a historical basis.

Research has shown is that the Jews in Canaan were living among several other cultures who they were competing with economically. The Torah seemed to be a way for Jews to define their own culture and to retain their identity by not intermixing with these "foreign" cultures. They must have felt pride knowing that not long ago they had come out of enslavement in Egypt and conquered all of Canaan before things went to hell. The Torah clearly says that these foreigners are "defiling" God's land by not following the practices that God demands of the Jews. That's a strong "Us vs. Them" policy.

I'm sure the Amorites and Moabites had their own legends. The Jews were able to keep their legends straight (except for the hundreds of contradictions) and eventually write them down so they're still known two thousand years later.

I don't doubt that what you say about biblical archeology is true, but I think the archeologists are looking right at the evidence and failing to see it. If memory serves, a large "palace" has been found. Biblical literalists immediately proclaimed it to be King Solomon's. But I think the archeologists decided it belonged to somebody else - somebody else who wasn't even a Jew. Does it occur to anybody that both could be right, that the story of Solomon was actually the story of somebody else? That story got incorporated into the Jewish account, even though it wasn't theirs. So it's both true and false at the same time. And that's most of the Bible - both true and false at the same time.

Doug

Edited January 5, 2013 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

Those who see the Bible as some kind of huge metaphor are people who can't accept what their religion represents. They should edit the Bible to represent their present beliefs or just throw the things away.

Marcion tried that and look what happened to him!

People who practice Judaism or Christianity yet also claim the Bible is purely fictional are members of the Biblical apologists club. I come across them all the time.

I kind of fit in this group. I don't think the Bible is purely fictional, but neither do I think there is anything magical about it. It's just a book. Because it's not reliable when it describes historical events or physical phenomena, it really can't be trusted for other pruposes, either. It's one book among many that are part-history, part myth.

"Oh, sure, the character 'God' in the dusty old Bible did lots of horrible things to people but trust us: the real 'God' we worship today loves us more than anything and would never harm anyone. Except homosexuals and perverts. And atheists. And people we think are bad."

You are forgetting that there are such things as "Christian atheists" and agnostics who would like to believe in god if somebody would present some evidence supporting the idea (Christians: present some real evidence; don't just insult my inteligence.). The transition from believer to non-believer seems to occur when one adopts people-centered philosophy based on humility, rather than a self-centered philosophy based on arrogance. Before readers start drawing and quartering me: a "god-centered" philosophy is really a self-centered philosophy because there is no concrete definition of "god." People put in there own definition because religion does not provide one.).

I don't, but there are Jews and Christians who do believe that an evil snake once did talk, as well as one sad donkey.

Eve is a nice match-up with the snake goddess of other eastern religions. As I understand it, Mormons believe that people will "become as gods." That's in the Bible: it was said by the snake talking to Eve.

About that talking donkey: According to Deuteronomy, that donkey belonged to Baalam - a priest of Balpeor (aka Shemesh, the Baalist sun god). Baalam is the only character from the Exodus story whose existence can be independently confirmed. His name was found in an inscription on a wall in Hisban, a ruin in Jordan. Baalam's altar was in a cave on Mount Nebo - hence the name Balpeor (God of the Opening). BTW: Moses is supposedly buried in a cave on Mount Nebo - I wonder... There is also a modern monastery whose water supply comes from a cave on Mount Nebo. Hmmmm!

According to Deuteronomy, Baalam would not offer up a prayer to save the Moabites from the Hebrews. In thanks for his contribution to their victory, the Hebrews murdered him.

About Jericho: it's walls did collapse, evidently in an earthquake. But archeologists are not in agreement about when that was. One school puts it about 1500 BC while the other one puts it about 1150 to 1100. Note that the second date would be about a century before "the construction of Zoan" mentioned in the Bible and just before "the construction of Hebron." Both Zoan and Hebron had been around for centuries as collections of mud huts before they were "constructed."

Doug

[ellapenella]

I agree with you 100%. God can do anything and all things but one; the thing we wish He did or should have done; at least just to satisfy our preconceived notions. If you read Deuteronomy 4:15,16, God has never been seen in any form of a man or of a woman. Therefore, to claim that God took the form of a man in Jesus is a contradiction to God's Word. Unless, you assert that these things

are to be accepted by faith. Then again, by faith, every thing is possible.

Ben

Yeah, now that you mention it I do recall that somewhere in the bible it says that the face of God has never been seen by any human, (I think that's what it says)but I don't recall it saying in any human form, I'd have to read it( which I will) .

But, there's parts in the bible that mention Christ being born and I think it says that the word became flesh and lived among us or something like that, do you recall?

See, I think that without an in depth understanding of the predictions and the fulfillment's of them , the bible gets what I'd rather refer to as being confusing. rather than suggesting contradiction.I just don't see it being that way, even when i have thought it was that way , I've always discovered that i was wrong, maybe i found my suggestions out a couple of years later but i can assure you that I've always discovered i was wrong every time i thought the bible contradicted itself.

[scowl]

Marcion tried that and look what happened to him!

Jefferson did that and he prospered.

You are forgetting that there are such things as "Christian atheists" and agnostics who would like to believe in god if somebody would present some evidence supporting the idea (Christians: present some real evidence; don't just insult my inteligence.).

"Christian atheists"? Do they hang out with the flat-Earth astronauts?

[+Link of Hyrule]

Yeah, now that you mention it I do recall that somewhere in the bible it says that the face of God has never been seen by any human, (I think that's what it says)but I don't recall it saying in any human form, I'd have to read it( which I will) .

But, there's parts in the bible that mention Christ being born and I think it says that the word became flesh and lived among us or something like that, do you recall?

See, I think that without an in depth understanding of the predictions and the fulfillment's of them , the bible gets what I'd rather refer to as being confusing. rather than suggesting contradiction.I just don't see it being that way, even when i have thought it was that way , I've always discovered that i was wrong, maybe i found my suggestions out a couple of years later but i can assure you that I've always discovered i was wrong every time i thought the bible contradicted itself.

You're quite correct, no one has seen God's face. God is a spirit entity and to see him in full glory would be fatal for mere humans. However, in the guise of angels and human form, God has visited humans from time to time (the special Old Testament character known as "the Angel of the Lord" is worth a study if you're interested).

[eight bits]

Hi, PA

You're quite correct, no one has seen God's face. God is a spirit entity and to see him in full glory would be fatal for mere humans. However, in the guise of angels and human form, God has visited humans from time to time (the special Old Testament character known as "the Angel of the Lord" is worth a study if you're interested).

What do you make of that being a pagan theme as well? I am thinking, of course, of the story of Dionysus' human mother, Semele, whom Hera assassinates by tricking Zeus into showing himself. The principle of a human overwhelmed by the divine seems more primal than revealed.

And while far from omnipotent, just like the other Indo-European gods, Zeus has no difficulty revealing himself in manageable forms when he wishes to move among men and women. So, again, this doesn't distinguish Semitic from Indo-European religious thinking.

Also, although the focus of your remark is the Jewish take on the matter, what do you make of the Christian idea of theosis (the desirable outcome for the secure majority of Nicene Christians, also described as "The beatific vision" in the West, that is, by the Roman Catholics)?

Isn't the theory there a "contradiction?" All Nicene Christans believe that at least the righteous will see God in the flesh, not just as a spirit being encountering a greater Spirit Being. The same idea is also believed to have been a Pharisaic Jewish opinion about the end of days.

That in turn squares with the Genesis image of unfallen (and recently fallen, but benefitting from Solomonic discernment) humanity dealing with God face-to-face. The reconciling idea seems to be that the resurrected body is a restoration of the preternatural, prelapsarian state.

[Doug1029]

Jefferson did that and he prospered.

Touche'.

"Christian atheists"? Do they hang out with the flat-Earth astronauts?

Christian atheists do not believe in god, but do adhere to the good parts of the Christian legend - such as, the Sermon on the Mount.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Edit : Well if you believe that a man can split sea in half and listening to burning bushs talk or giant hands in the sky .... yep 100% just a fairytale with huge amount of power behind it... oh dont forget the bloodshed

I have posted the basis for the "Red Sea Crossing" on this very thread. A little ol' Indian Ocean hurricane can generate more than enough energy to blow the ford clean of water and create the seiche/surge waves needed for the "walls of water." It wasn't a man - it was a hurricane (They're called "cyclones" in the Inidan Ocean.).

There are a number of explanations about how a bush can "burn" without being consumed. I don't much like any of them. All of them forget that burning requires an ignition source and if "Moses" had provided one, he wouldn't see it as a miracle. This incident is part of the story only because the story line requires a reason for "Moses" to leave Sinai and return to Egypt. The story wouldn't hold together without some such device and the burning bush conveniently provides one.

Doug

[doppleganger2015]

[ellapenella]

You're quite correct, no one has seen God's face. God is a spirit entity and to see him in full glory would be fatal for mere humans. However, in the guise of angels and human form, God has visited humans from time to time (the special Old Testament character known as "the Angel of the Lord" is worth a study if you're interested).

Yes that sounds interesting . I've started to learn or become more aware of some things lately that are so weird and strange to explain to anyone . i feel like i sound strange and weird just talking about it. It seems that Angels of God the Holy ones are more hidden , unseen but there's another type of form that is associated with UFO's that some people are explaining and showing up on infarred video that these beings exist.They ofetn reveal themselves in holograms like ,always with light and shadows but they are unlike a regular shadow because they're seen shapeshifting and moving. It's all really strange and i wonder if they are the fallen ones and if they appear like that because they have no host no body and maybe even no real main purpose any longer.

From what I've gathered so far in my understanding of these things is that ; UFO's and these beings are connected and not all ufo's are actualy of material substance that these beings seem to appear along side with, it's more like a light source, an energy that these things need or something, maybe to exist ?It's all really weird.It's said that these things are appearing more and more and are being recorded by researchers all over the world. I guess with technology being more advanced people are discovering more ways to be clever in seeing them same thing with ghosts or whatever..But I wonder, if they're the fallen angels ?...

The angel of the lord that you're talking about, is that Michael ? and if so, I heard that some people say that Michael is really Jesus or that Jesus is really that angel Michael.Is that who the angel of the lord is that you mentioned?

Edited January 8, 2013 by Reann

[ellapenella]

I have posted the basis for the "Red Sea Crossing" on this very thread. A little ol' Indian Ocean hurricane can generate more than enough energy to blow the ford clean of water and create the seiche/surge waves needed for the "walls of water." It wasn't a man - it was a hurricane (They're called "cyclones" in the Inidan Ocean.).

There are a number of explanations about how a bush can "burn" without being consumed. I don't much like any of them. All of them forget that burning requires an ignition source and if "Moses" had provided one, he wouldn't see it as a miracle. This incident is part of the story only because the story line requires a reason for "Moses" to leave Sinai and return to Egypt. The story wouldn't hold together without some such device and the burning bush conveniently provides one.

Doug

Was it actually the Red sea or was it a misinterpretation of transferring the language ? I hear some say it was the sea of reeds not the red sea. I don't know though.But, that direction of the sea of reeds leads to some mountain and place that Moses describes in the bible. All the landmarks are present. I actually heard this about maybe 10 years or so ago while listening to John Haggee one day.. He actually had sent a team of researchers out there to uncover some things about it , i guess the translation aspect didn't sit well with him and so being that he was more than able to afford the cost of sending a team there to research it, he did.What they found was pretty evident that it could of been The Sea of Reeds and not The Red Sea.

[ellapenella]

Touche'.

Christian atheists do not believe in god, but do adhere to the good parts of the Christian legend - such as, the Sermon on the Mount.

Doug

Um , this can not be. There simply just isn't any connection with Christian and athesit , other than they both are totally opposite. You must know that though.

If you're referring to "some of" the Christian priniciples being practiced by athesist that's more understanding other than that, there is no such thing as a Christian atheist. I would have to refer to that person as a fake, a poser or something , but not a Christian.Actually, I find that to be more so hurtful than insulting to read what you wrote because to know Christ in your heart you would know better than to say something like that or to suggest that a christian atheist is something respectful to say being that it's completley opposite of everything Christ taught in being a Christian...There is no such thing as a Christian athesit.Either one is a Christian or not.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Reann

[scowl]

Christian atheists do not believe in god, but do adhere to the good parts of the Christian legend - such as, the Sermon on the Mount.

So they believe Jesus was a complete fraud, yet follow his teachings? I would call that hypocrisy.

[ellapenella]

So they believe Jesus was a complete fraud, yet follow his teachings? I would call that hypocrisy.

Well, a lot of people believe in Christian principles that are atheist, they even will send their children to Sunday school to be taught by Christians , yet they themselves do not believe in God or Christ. But they allow for Christians to help raise their children by sending them to Christian schools and to church. I see this a lot and know of people that do that. I personally have not been to church in a long time and i sort of miss it but don't really like being around churchy people , if that makes any sense ahaha...I do enjoy listening to a friend of mine at work share stories of what her pastor talks about with them. She's catholic and yet, this pastor sounds really cool, really interesting. Like one time he told them to find their Guardian Angel by closing their eyes in a quiet room alone and asking in a whisper for their angel to reveal it's name to them, he said that the first name that appears in their mind is the name of their guardian. I don't know though , but when i listen to her , i can't help but to feel that this catholic pastor sounds sort of new agey to me. Just yesterday she was sharing with me that he gave an euphony on the three wise men and said they were astrologers( which they were) he said that it took them years to travel to where Christ was born and I suppose that's how they all crossed paths. That's something I think I like to look into a bit more. But they were astrologers and they knew a very special important life changing birth was going to happen.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Reann

[Doug1029]

Was it actually the Red sea or was it a misinterpretation of transferring the language ? I hear some say it was the sea of reeds not the red sea. I don't know though.But, that direction of the sea of reeds leads to some mountain and place that Moses describes in the bible. All the landmarks are present. I actually heard this about maybe 10 years or so ago while listening to John Haggee one day.. He actually had sent a team of researchers out there to uncover some things about it , i guess the translation aspect didn't sit well with him and so being that he was more than able to afford the cost of sending a team there to research it, he did.What they found was pretty evident that it could of been The Sea of Reeds and not The Red Sea.

The crossing was a ford in the narrows between the Bitter Lakes at El Kubrit. At low water, it was maybe eighteen inches deep and during a southeast wind, it would have been dry.

This all takes a bit of explaining. The Heroopolitic Red Sea was actually an ephemeral lake 20 miles wide and 60 miles long, stretching from just west of Ismailia (Shur) to a sandstone sill at Shalufa. The sill was 4.5 feet above modern sea level and acted as a dam. The Canal of the Pharaoh emptied into Lake Timsah which was a low-water part of the Heroopolitic Red Sea. When enough water ran through the canal, it raised water levels so that the lake filled and the surplus water flowed through Tiah beni-Israel to the Gulf of Suez. When the canal was not operating, the lake dried up, leaving a dry salt pan where Lake Timsah is now and two much smaller lakes (the Bitter Lakes) in their current locations, but with water levels six feet below what they are now.

Sea levels have risen and fallen through the millenia so that about 1750 BC and again about 1000 BC sea level came within inches of the top of the sill. At these times, a spring tide or a storm surge could flow over the sill and fill the Heroopolitic Red Sea with salt water. During the Roman Period, about 250-300 AD, sea level over-topped the sill, filling the lake with salt water.

At the time of the "Exodus," the Heroopolitic Red Sea was dry and the Bitter Lakes were at their natural water level of six feet below sea level. Had there been fresh water in them, there would have been no need to spend three days in the wilderness without water, as the "Exodus" could simply have followed the shore all the way to Suez. There is a papyrus report from an officer at Merneptah's Fort (probably Tell er Reteba) saying he had allowed some "Shosu" to pass the fort to water their animals at the "Pools of Pithom" (the now-defunct Lake Kemuera). This was maybe 20 years before the "Ramesside Exodus"; the canal was inoperable at the time. We know there was no salt water in the lake because they stayed at a spring on the edge of the Suez Desert. That was Bir Fuwara (sp?), about 3 miles east of the old lake shore. They would have had to cross the salt pan to get to it.

The Canal of the Pharaoh served as a crocodile-filled mote ("Timsah" means "Crocodile."). It also supplied water to the frontier fort at Tjel. In building the northern branch of the canal, the Egyptians ran the water into a natural depression to save themselves several miles of digging. That became Lake Balah, also known as "The Papyrus Swamp." The name "Sea of Reeds" may have come from there. Lake Balah was completely dug up in building the Suez Canal. It is no more. And it wasn't very big, anyway. Pursuers would have no trouble riding along the shore and overtaking their quarry on the far side.

But any of the six lakes across the Isthmus of Suez could have been "the Sea of Reeds." Lake Timsah, Lake Balah and the Bitter Lakes were fresh when the canal was in operation. The others each got enough fresh water to dilute the salt enough that papyrus could survive (Papyrus requires that water contain no more than 1.5% salt; sea water has 3%.). Enough fresh water may have reached the Gulf of Suez that papyrus could grow there. There are reports of it doing so an ancient times. There are a lot of possibilities for "the Sea of Reeds." There is also the possibility that "Sea of Reeds" was a pun - the Bible has a lot of those. It could have been simultaneously a reference to a reedy place, Pharaoh's demise and the end of a journey. Now you have lots of possibilities to choose from.

But only El Kubrit has a channel mouth (Pi-hahiroth), a watch tower (Migdol; Gebel Geneifa) and a temple (Baal Zephon; Gebel Seipha). The campsite was on the west shore at what is now an airport (Check GoogleEarth; you can see the runways.). AND Gebel Seipha is in the right direction for an "east" wind to blow from it to the crossing site and clear the water.

Doug

Edited January 8, 2013 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

Um , this can not be. There simply just isn't any connection with Christian and athesit , other than they both are totally opposite. You must know that though.

If you're referring to "some of" the Christian priniciples being practiced by athesist that's more understanding other than that, there is no such thing as a Christian atheist. I would have to refer to that person as a fake, a poser or something , but not a Christian.Actually, I find that to be more so hurtful than insulting to read what you wrote because to know Christ in your heart you would know better than to say something like that or to suggest that a christian atheist is something respectful to say being that it's completley opposite of everything Christ taught in being a Christian...There is no such thing as a Christian athesit.Either one is a Christian or not.

You can call them anything you want to, but I know several people who do not believe in god, yet believe that the story of Jesus upholds an exemplary life style. Some believe that Jesus actually lived and some just don't know. None believe he was a god.

The evidence that there even was a Jesus is beyond flimsy. The Synoptic Gospels were written over a century after the biblical version of Jesus was executed. No contemporary writer claims to have seen him (Not even Saint Paul, who may be mythical, himself.). The only evidence is the writing of Papias, Bishop of Hieronymous, who laments that there are no written accounts of Jesus' life. He also says he had "the words of John ringing in my ears." In other words, he heard John speak. He also tells a story which is not in the Bible that he says he got from "the daughters of Philip." He is the only witness to any of the apostles and there are none who say they saw Jesus.

There were other Christian writings floating around before the modern gospels: Clement of Rome tells the story of the woman who poured oil on Jesus, but the details are different - he is quoting a different source.

So, yes. One can be an agnostic or an atheist, not believe in any god, yet still think the character depicted in the gospels, though fictional, is worthy of admiration.

Doug

[ellapenella]

You can call them anything you want to, but I know several people who do not believe in god, yet believe that the story of Jesus upholds an exemplary life style. Some believe that Jesus actually lived and some just don't know. None believe he was a god.

The evidence that there even was a Jesus is beyond flimsy. The Synoptic Gospels were written over a century after the biblical version of Jesus was executed. No contemporary writer claims to have seen him (Not even Saint Paul, who may be mythical, himself.). The only evidence is the writing of Papias, Bishop of Hieronymous, who laments that there are no written accounts of Jesus' life. He also says he had "the words of John ringing in my ears." In other words, he heard John speak. He also tells a story which is not in the Bible that he says he got from "the daughters of Philip." He is the only witness to any of the apostles and there are none who say they saw Jesus.

There were other Christian writings floating around before the modern gospels: Clement of Rome tells the story of the woman who poured oil on Jesus, but the details are different - he is quoting a different source.

So, yes. One can be an agnostic or an atheist, not believe in any god, yet still think the character depicted in the gospels, though fictional, is worthy of admiration.

Doug

I do believe that there's evidence . But I also believe that there are people who will refute it just because they have no faith and can not , do not or refuse to understand faith.

I said to you that they are either Christian or not because a christian can not be both , a Christian and an atheist .. that's just impossible.

[Doug1029]

I do believe that there's evidence . But I also believe that there are people who will refute it just because they have no faith and can not , do not or refuse to understand faith.

I said to you that they are either Christian or not because a christian can not be both , a Christian and an atheist .. that's just impossible.

There's evidence - just not very much of it. And there's evidence to the contrary - a lot. But still, legends and urban myths get started somehow and there's usually a kernel of truth in there somewhere.

Christian - atheist. Semantics. I'm trying to present an idea I don't necessarily agree with (I'd make a terrible attorney.). Personally, if a person says they're a Christian, I have to take them at their word. You can define them however you want, but they are what they are.

Doug

[+Link of Hyrule]

Hi, PA

Hi 8bits, haven't spoken in a while, it seems. I've been reading your posts though, as informative as ever

What do you make of that being a pagan theme as well?

It does not surprise me. Religions don't form in a vacuum, but instead are influenced by that which is happening around them.

Also, although the focus of your remark is the Jewish take on the matter, what do you make of the Christian idea of theosis (the desirable outcome for the secure majority of Nicene Christians, also described as "The beatific vision" in the West, that is, by the Roman Catholics)?

Isn't the theory there a "contradiction?" All Nicene Christans believe that at least the righteous will see God in the flesh, not just as a spirit being encountering a greater Spirit Being. The same idea is also believed to have been a Pharisaic Jewish opinion about the end of days.

That in turn squares with the Genesis image of unfallen (and recently fallen, but benefitting from Solomonic discernment) humanity dealing with God face-to-face. The reconciling idea seems to be that the resurrected body is a restoration of the preternatural, prelapsarian state.

One approach to your question is that you answered it in your final sentence by appealing to pre-Fall pre-sinful humanity and that this pre-Fall state renders us righteous enough to see God. However, that's not the only way to answer it. The various theories concerning Eschatology are inescapably varied, and for you to refer to "all Nicene Christians" feels strained. For example, a Christian who fervently expects the "Rapture" to include them avoiding the tribulations of the End as he is taken up into the sky to be with Jesus only to come back later to experience a thousand years of peace, well they'd have a very different idea about meeting God than someone else who doesn't believe in a Rapture at all, and instead believes we are already in the Millennium spoken of in Revelation, and all we await is the return of Jesus to usher in a new heaven and new earth. Both examples here could very well be defined as Nicene Christians but have wildly different ideas about when they would meet God.

Getting right down to it, no one knows for certain what will happen. Revelation is far too easy to interpret to fit a heap of different ideas, so instead of suggesting that you are right or wrong, I'll simply answer that I do not know. I personally believe in a theory called Amillennialism, which I have a feeling I've discussed with you in the past, but I also admit I could be wrong. We don't know, as a Christian all I can say for certain is that it will happen however God has planned it out to happen.

Hope this is of some help

~ Regards, PA

Edited January 9, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[+Link of Hyrule]

Yes that sounds interesting . I've started to learn or become more aware of some things lately that are so weird and strange to explain to anyone . i feel like i sound strange and weird just talking about it. It seems that Angels of God the Holy ones are more hidden , unseen but there's another type of form that is associated with UFO's that some people are explaining and showing up on infarred video that these beings exist.They ofetn reveal themselves in holograms like ,always with light and shadows but they are unlike a regular shadow because they're seen shapeshifting and moving. It's all really strange and i wonder if they are the fallen ones and if they appear like that because they have no host no body and maybe even no real main purpose any longer.

From what I've gathered so far in my understanding of these things is that ; UFO's and these beings are connected and not all ufo's are actualy of material substance that these beings seem to appear along side with, it's more like a light source, an energy that these things need or something, maybe to exist ?It's all really weird.It's said that these things are appearing more and more and are being recorded by researchers all over the world. I guess with technology being more advanced people are discovering more ways to be clever in seeing them same thing with ghosts or whatever..But I wonder, if they're the fallen angels ?...

I don't think we can know for certain. I believe there is a spirit-world out there that humans are normally not able to see, and that some people are gifted with an ability to at least get a glimpse of what is there. I don't necessarily agree with you about your theory on UFO's and ghosts and such, but that's not really central to the discussion.

The angel of the lord that you're talking about, is that Michael ? and if so, I heard that some people say that Michael is really Jesus or that Jesus is really that angel Michael.Is that who the angel of the lord is that you mentioned?

The Angel of the Lord is never given an actual name. Some traditions do suggest that it is Michael. And yes, some theories suggest that the Angel of the Lord is Jesus. Theory and tradition aside, what we know is what is said in the Old Testament. Take the following verse/s as an example:

Exo 3:1 Now Moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian, and he led his flock to the west side of the wilderness and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.

Exo 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush. He looked, and behold, the bush was burning, yet it was not consumed.

Exo 3:3 And Moses said, "I will turn aside to see this great sight, why the bush is not burned."

Exo 3:4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am."

Notice how in verse 2, the famous Burning Bush scene, it is the Angel of the Lord who appeared, but when the figure in the bush actually speaks, it states that God called from the bush. "The Angel of the Lord" and "the Lord" are interchangeable terms used. This contrasts to other parts of the Bible where only an ordinary angel is sent by God and doesn't have the authority and interchangeability of the Angel of the Lord.

I personally believe the Angel of the Lord to be Jesus, but I can't be certain. It's just a theory. Nevertheless, the Angel of the Lord is a very interesting Old Testament character to study, in my experience and opinion

~ Regards, PA

Edited January 9, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[eight bits]

Hi, again, PA

Thank you for the kind words.

The various theories concerning Eschatology are inescapably varied, and for you to refer to "all Nicene Christians" feels strained.

Yes, I agree about varied, but what I attributed to all Nicene Christians was "at least the righteous will see God in the flesh," based upon the Creed's last declarative sentence,

We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

which obviously stems from the earlier Apostle's Creed's statement, similarly placed,

I believe in... the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

While that does leave wiggle room about many details, I think it does put literally all Nicenes on just the hook which I specified. Those who get to see God at all, must do so in the flesh eventually. Or so it would seem from the plain meaning of the words professed, which profession defines the group in question.

So, I think the "contradictory" part stands, that there seems to be a Mosaic tradition about it being impossible for anybody to have seen God as he really is, and another pious tradition that at least two people did just that, to which Christians added that the First Couple's pre-fall situation is the eventual destiny of everybody not excluded for some cause from experiencing God's presence.

"Contradictions" don't much bother me - even if I were a believer, I wouldn't be a literal inerrantist. But it does seem to me that the traditions being documented are incompatible, and that it is fair to point that out.

Edited January 9, 2013 by eight bits

[scowl]

Well, a lot of people believe in Christian principles that are atheist, they even will send their children to Sunday school to be taught by Christians , yet they themselves do not believe in God or Christ.

These people are not Christians.

What are these "Christian principles" they want their children to believe? That they will burn in hell if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their Savior? That's the first principle they're taught.

[scowl]

Notice how in verse 2, the famous Burning Bush scene, it is the Angel of the Lord who appeared, but when the figure in the bush actually speaks, it states that God called from the bush. "The Angel of the Lord" and "the Lord" are interchangeable terms used. This contrasts to other parts of the Bible where only an ordinary angel is sent by God and doesn't have the authority and interchangeability of the Angel of the Lord.

I thought this was one of the most comic moments of the Torah. God sends an angel (Greek for "messenger"). Moses is so dense that he doesn't understand the burning bush and looks the other way. I could imagine God rolling His eyes and thinking "This guy's so dumb I'll have to talk to him myself. Why did I pick him again?" and starts yelling at Moses directly. God doesn't explode out of the sky with lightning and thunder. He cordially says "Yoo hoo! Over here, Moses! It's me, God! No, really!"

The subsequent bargaining between God Almighty and whiny, reluctant Moses is also pure comedy. Moses complains that he stutters and is "slow of speech". God yells that HE gave Moses the ability to speak in the first place. Everyone expects Moses to yell back, "Yeah, thanks for that, God! No wonder You think I'm a perfect prophet!"