Contradiction or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Netrox --

John 1:1-5
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. "

Did you know that Jesus is THE WORD ? He came down on His Own to become flesh. The Word became flesh. Do you understand what it means that the Word became flesh ?

It obviously that Jesus is really 100% God and 100% man when He became flesh.

Let start with this one: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

It was meant to be figurative. "In *the beginning was the Word,*the Word was *WITH* God, and the *Word was God*"

It's an ABSTRACT idea. Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass but my words shall not pass away" meaning that his words should be eternal even if heaven and earth are gone. He was talking about his parables being used forever - that it should outlast the end of the earth and heaven (once again, it proves that souls don't last forever - heaven will pass away as Jesus claimed it will).

It's a figure of speech. It's a serious mistake to think that it was talking bouat Jesus being God or Word.
 
Let start with this one: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

It was meant to be figurative. "In *the beginning was the Word,*the Word was *WITH* God, and the *Word was God*"

It's an ABSTRACT idea. Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass but my words shall not pass away" meaning that his words should be eternal even if heaven and earth are gone. He was talking about his parables being used forever - that it should outlast the end of the earth and heaven (once again, it proves that souls don't last forever - heaven will pass away as Jesus claimed it will).

It's a figure of speech. It's a serious mistake to think that it was talking bouat Jesus being God or Word.
Read the whole passage to knwo WHO is THE WORD. John 1:14 says " And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth. The Word is Jesus Christ. The Word in greek is Logos which meant 2 things 1) a thought or concept and 2) the expression or utterance of that thought. As of 10 commandments, "thou shall not worship other gods", noticed, the angelic proclamations, wisemen, shephards bow before Him and worshipped. The problem is this, so much quoting the scriptures without the whole story of the message lead so much confusions.
 
Let start with this one: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

It was meant to be figurative. "In *the beginning was the Word,*the Word was *WITH* God, and the *Word was God*"

It's an ABSTRACT idea. Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass but my words shall not pass away" meaning that his words should be eternal even if heaven and earth are gone. He was talking about his parables being used forever - that it should outlast the end of the earth and heaven (once again, it proves that souls don't last forever - heaven will pass away as Jesus claimed it will).

It's a figure of speech. It's a serious mistake to think that it was talking bouat Jesus being God or Word.

Yes, you are correct about " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but His Word shall not pass away. "
You notice He says that His Word shall not pass away, right ? Ok, do you know what that means ? He is talkin' about Himself that shall NOT pass away. Jesus Himself is the Word -- the Living Word. The preexistent Word who was with God " in the beginnin' " has now become flesh. ( John 1:1-18 ). Now the Word dwells among us revealin' the glory of God ( John 1:14 ).

The personal presence of God in Jesus Christ is the central and normative source of knowledge about God. Christ is known today through the witness of inspired Scripture and through the personal witness of the Holy Spirit. Even as it is revealed, God's revelation in Jesus Christ remains mysterious ( Romans 16:25-26; Ephesians 3:1-10; Colosians 1:24-27; 4:2-4 ). Faith believes that what remains hidden in mystery is totally consistent with what is revealed in Christ.

As for soul : soul is somethin' that can breathe, smell, taste, hear, see, and feel. When you die, your body don't function anymore because, of your soul is leavin' the body. Your soul is like an electric ( energy ), you will be able to see thus far, be able to feel everythin', be able to hear in miles away, and all.

That body of yours, it is just like a clay. It don't feel anythin' just like a rag doll after your soul leaves your body. It don't breathe or feel or anythin'. Interestin' to think about, huh ? :)
 
On a 2nd thought to answer : Yes, souls will live forever, but not the bodies.
 
Jesus of Nazareth would indicate that that's where he came from... but Nazareth didn't even exist in those times, except as a burielground (as I recalll..)

this myth was buried by actual archaeology 13 years ago. They discovered some buildings under modern day Nazereth that were of the same build style of the time in the Bible. That and the fact that Nazereth existed according to the Talmud up until a year before the census and a few years after Jesus's ascension hints at the actual timeline being tampered with by Jews who were biased against Jesus. The Roman census mentioned people in Nazareth. Nazareth existed. Otherwise, why would the Jews have derogatorily called Christians, Nazarenes? They would have just said that Jesus wasn't from Nazareth.

InSite Israel Nazareth History
 
Let start with this one: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

It was meant to be figurative. "In *the beginning was the Word,*the Word was *WITH* God, and the *Word was God*"

It's an ABSTRACT idea. Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass but my words shall not pass away" meaning that his words should be eternal even if heaven and earth are gone. He was talking about his parables being used forever - that it should outlast the end of the earth and heaven (once again, it proves that souls don't last forever - heaven will pass away as Jesus claimed it will).

It's a figure of speech. It's a serious mistake to think that it was talking bouat Jesus being God or Word.

Not if you actually want to read into the history of the target audience. Christians at the time constantly called Jesus the Word. It isn't a leap in logic to assume that the proper word used there is referring to Jesus, especially when he uses it later on in the next few verses to go through the early history of Jesus's life. In fact, the transition from the Word to Jesus is so seamless that it is obvious that it was referring to Jesus.

As to the heaven thing. Jesus was referring to the first heaven, or that which we often refer to as the heavens, or space, the sky, the stars, moon, sun, etc. Heaven, also referred to as Paradise, was not what he meant.
 
this myth was buried by actual archaeology 13 years ago. They discovered some buildings under modern day Nazereth that were of the same build style of the time in the Bible. That and the fact that Nazereth existed according to the Talmud up until a year before the census and a few years after Jesus's ascension hints at the actual timeline being tampered with by Jews who were biased against Jesus. The Roman census mentioned people in Nazareth. Nazareth existed. Otherwise, why would the Jews have derogatorily called Christians, Nazarenes? They would have just said that Jesus wasn't from Nazareth.

InSite Israel Nazareth History

Can you make a point without alleging a Jewish conspiracy, please? And explain how they would magically be able to alter the legal documents of an empire that hated their very existence, while you're at it.
 
Yes, you are correct about " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but His Word shall not pass away. "
You notice He says that His Word shall not pass away, right ? Ok, do you know what that means ? He is talkin' about Himself that shall NOT pass away. Jesus Himself is the Word -- the Living Word.
The preexistent Word who was with God " in the beginnin' " has now become flesh. ( John 1:1-18 ). Now the Word dwells among us revealin' the glory of God ( John 1:14 ).
You are ALMOST right. Matthew 24:35 (KJV) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Notice one red letter, "S" above. This refers to Jesus-speaking. Netrox is right by saying, "Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass but my words shall not pass away" meaning that his words should be eternal even if heaven and earth are gone."

The Word is Jesus Himself; the Words are Jesus-speaking.

Netrox quoted:
It was meant to be figurative. "In *the beginning was the Word,*the Word was *WITH* God, and the *Word was God*"

Nextrox, if I am not human, I would say, "I am without the flesh."
 
Salam
How do anyone interpet this one?

Acts 2:22 of the Holy Bible considers Jesus as a man. It says, “Ye men of Israel, hear these words, jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourself also know.” This was not finished was it. The statement continues:
2:23 "This man, delivered up by the set plan and foreknowledge of God, you killed, using lawless men to crucify him."

Is this to be a contradiction or is it true?

Wasalam
No contradiction!!! These verses are what Peter preached at Pentecast.
 
Jesus came as the SON OF GOD, not GOD. He prayed to his Father, his GOD. He said he's Jesus, the son of God. Jesus said that anyone who comes through him will see God which clearly shows that God and Jesus are separate. God had DIRECT CONVERSATIONS with Jesus showing that they are separate. God SENT Jesus to earth, not HIMSELF. "And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."
-1 John 5:11-12

I find nothing about Jesus being God and God being Jesus because NOTHING in the New Testament supports that concept.
One God.

These Scriptures did not say, "GodS," but they said "God."

Jesus IS God the Son.
Father in Heaven is God the Father.
The Holy Spirit is God the Holy Spirit.

They are God.
 
A bible full of contradictions has nothing to do with rejecting Christ.
Disagree with your statement.

If the Bible has any contradictions, God contradicts Himself. Reject Him?

If the Bible has any contradictions, you made God a liar. Reject Him?

If the Bible did not have any contradictions, the reason, that we should know better, is because God CANNOT lie toward you ALL. Reject Him?
 
Netrox --

John 1:1-5
" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not. "

Did you know that Jesus is THE WORD ? He came down on His Own to become flesh. The Word became flesh. Do you understand what it means that the Word became flesh ?

It obviously that Jesus is really 100% God and 100% man when He became flesh.
Amen!
 
You are ALMOST right. Matthew 24:35 (KJV) Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Notice one red letter, "S" above. This refers to Jesus-speaking. Netrox is right by saying, "Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass but my words shall not pass away" meaning that his words should be eternal even if heaven and earth are gone."

The Word is Jesus Himself; the Words are Jesus-speaking.

Netrox quoted:

Nextrox, if I am not human, I would say, "I am without the flesh."

I know. You are correct about words. I am fully aware of that His Words are eternal and it will never pass away. But, thanks for correctin' it for me. :)
 
Since it is of such importance that a town Nazaeth has to exist in order to "prove" the bible right, it's no surprise "evidence" is allways found.


From here.

The Lost City

The Gospels tell us that Jesus's home town was the 'City of Nazareth' ('polis Natzoree'):


And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a CITY of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.
(Luke1.26,27)

And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the CITY of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:
(Luke 2.3,4)

But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a CITY called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
(Matthew 2.22,23)

And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own CITY Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
(Luke 2.39,40)




The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.


................Yet one point is inescapable: the Jewish disposition towards the 'uncleanliness' of the dead. The Jews, according to their customs, would not build a village in the immediate vicinity of tombs and vice versa. Tombs would have to be outside any village.

'The tombs, both those discovered by Bagatti and others known from earlier explorations, would have been placed outside the village and serve, in fact, to delimit its circumference for us. Looking at their locations on the plans drawn up by Bagatti (1.28) or Finegan (27), one realizes just how small the village actually was ...'
J.D. Crossan (The Historical Jesus)


But just how small can we get before giving up on a 'village'? The presence of numerous rock-cut tombs that close to the 'grotto' is evidence that, in the 1st century, in that area, there was no village. The area was not inhabited, even if it was used.

So if evidence shows only tombs on the location where a place Nazareth should be, then obviously....

From here:
And from this we understand the reason that Pontius Pilate decorates the cross with the sign "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" (John 19:19) - meaning that the "King of the Jews" is from "nowhere."
 
I watched History channel two weeks ago about that. There are many different perspectives ongoing thru many years. But I like CEV how it translate instead of using CITY of Nazareth, here's the better way to put it in Luke 2:4 " So Joseph had to leave Nazareth in Galilee and go to Bethlehem in Judea." There are many meaning in same word in English. English is one of the most confusing language of all language. This is why there are so much arguments in many ways of how they read. As in History channel mentioned Nazareth is more like countryside, other thinking meaning nowhere. They did find some cooking place and etc in those area. Even also mentioned Bethlehem could be northen part than near Jerusalem. It isn't the Bible itself. Similar about different culture where Paul went, he sent letters different cities and taught different way, but the same message. Why? Culture. If you notice why each person been told differently than others, its bec its depend on a person way of living and what each person responds. That is why so many christians criticize and judging other people. One thing is clear, we should minister one another who've been struggling in their spiritual walk. Paul did mentioned have nothing to do with those who is debauchery, self center, gossip, sexual immorality of any kinds and etc. Then who should we associate? A person who loves the Lord and tho the mistakes big or small, we should edify. But like I mentioned several times, its should be confide one another. Many fail to follow that procedure. No, not just church has that problem, bec people of the world has the same problem. So, this is all this about like mentioned about Nazareth. Same about claiming specific spot where Jesus was born and etc. Bible didn't tell you exact spot. In early years different person put a definitive area which lead many to believe that exact locations. To me, regard what or how or where, is unimportant. The important message is this, the coming of Messiah, returning of the Messiah. The Salvation given to us from God. There will be and has been tainted to decieve people from know who Christ really is.
 
Can you make a point without alleging a Jewish conspiracy, please? And explain how they would magically be able to alter the legal documents of an empire that hated their very existence, while you're at it.

Roman governors wanted this new king dead and gone as much as the Jews. They had no more need to mention Nazereth than did the Jews. That and the fact that Nazereth was such a small town that it didn't have any importance at the time. In fact, the only mention of it at the times can be found in the census that Herod Antipas issued.
With all that, the Jews had no need to modify anything.

Edit: plus, with the actual ruins able to be viewed, what is the point of documentation?
 
Roman governors wanted this new king dead and gone as much as the Jews. They had no more need to mention Nazereth than did the Jews. That and the fact that Nazereth was such a small town that it didn't have any importance at the time. In fact, the only mention of it at the times can be found in the census that Herod Antipas issued.
With all that, the Jews had no need to modify anything.

Edit: plus, with the actual ruins able to be viewed, what is the point of documentation?
As I recall, Nazareth was a dwelling with a bariel place. "Coming from Nazareth" could therefore mean "coming out of nowhere..".
Archeological finds show NO town where NAzareth is now...
And this fits with the concept that the story of Jesus was allready going around centuries BEFORE the year 0. (Dionosys, Bacchus etc..)
 
As I recall, Nazareth was a dwelling with a bariel place. "Coming from Nazareth" could therefore mean "coming out of nowhere..".
Archeological finds show NO town where NAzareth is now...
And this fits with the concept that the story of Jesus was allready going around centuries BEFORE the year 0. (Dionosys, Bacchus etc..)

Well, unless you are speaking of the prophecies, then you must be mistaken. IT is called that since Judaism is likely one of the oldest religions, it is also the stem of many other religions that stole from their prophecies. Not exactly a leap in logic.
 
Well, unless you are speaking of the prophecies, then you must be mistaken. IT is called that since Judaism is likely one of the oldest religions, it is also the stem of many other religions that stole from their prophecies. Not exactly a leap in logic.
You're telling me that Nazareth is in the Torah?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top