Bible Study

Thank you for the explanation sir. But is it written in the Bible about that?
May I know which verse in the Bible mentioning it?

Originally Posted by !?

Thank you for the explanation sir. But is it written in the Bible about that?
May I know which verse in the Bible mentioning it?

Luke 8:2 and Mark 16:9 are when she is mentioned prior to the Crucifixion.

Thank you again, kind sir.

Though I am still not convinced with Christianity, since the verses are complicated and confusing me.

Originally Posted by !?

Thank you again, kind sir.

Though I am still not convinced with Christianity, since the verses are complicated and confusing me.

Well, I don't think that anyone here is ordained or anything. If you're looking for an in depth explanation like it seems you are, you should consider speaking with a pastor or a priest.

Yeah, chances are any pastors in your local churches have been studying the Bible and such longer than you've been alive. Even though I'm not Christian and don't hold the same beliefs, I went to church for about half a year and the sermons helped me understand the religion better.

Well, what are you confused on? If I can find the answer(s) for you, I will. I could even ask my pastor some for you.

Originally Posted by mattj

I'd love to hear why your denomination teaches what it teaches on the subject of the Godhead.

Well, I'm from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we don't believe in a closed canon in regards to scripture. We have the Bible, but also the Book of Mormon and other scriptures.
One biblical source I could cite that supports the view (though by no means proves it) is when God creates humanity "in his own image," which we interpret as meaning that God actually looks like a human being. In fact, we believe He (and Jesus Christ, thanks to His resurrection) have physical bodies of flesh and bone, though immortal and "perfected" in the sense that they cannot be harmed.

Originally Posted by Great White North

Well, I don't think that anyone here is ordained or anything. If you're looking for an in depth explanation like it seems you are, you should consider speaking with a pastor or a priest.

I'm actually an ordained elder in my church, though that's something that's given as a result of both age and living up to certain standards, not an educational degree.



One question I'd like to pose for discussion--
I've seen paintings and videos about Christ's crucifixion that show the two thieves only being tied to their crosses instead of nailed like Christ was. I've never seen any sort of biblical support for that, and I thought that nailing people to a cross was the Roman's specific way of doing it, and so the thieves would also be nailed.
Anyone know of any sources or have an insight into that?

I'm actually an ordained elder in my church, though that's something that's given as a result of both age and living up to certain standards, not an educational degree.

Well we were more referring to someone who's made a study of the Bible in aims of teaching others...

Oh! Duh! Mormonism. That explains it. I was like, which protestant denomination...? Brainfart I suppose.

Idunno GWN. You might be surprised, but its not unheard of for seriously devoted protestants to put in just as much time and effort as any seminary educated pastor.

Idunno GWN. You might be surprised, but its not unheard of for seriously devoted protestants to put in just as much time and effort as any seminary educated pastor.

Well maybe he is and maybe he isn't. Though I don't really know either way. Or something. That makes sense right? Too drunk for this right now.

Meh, I had a four year religious course during high school, and I was a missionary for two years. I don't consider myself an expert by any means, but I've got a general understanding of the Bible and other scriptures, and I generally know where to look if I'm not sure of something. Take that as you will.

Romans 9:14
So what can we say? Is God unjust? Of course not!

Romans 9:18, 15
He has mercy on whomever he chooses. As he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.'

Romans 9:18
And he makes obstinate whomever he chooses.

Romans 9:19
Now you will say to me, 'Then why does God still blame us? For who can go against his will?'

Romans 9:20
But who are you, a mere man, to argue with God?

Romans 9:21
Doesn't the potter have the right to create from the same lump of clay one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

Romans 9:20
Does the clay have the right to ask the potter, 'Why have you made me like this?'

How on earth does this allow for free will?

Free will means you can choose how to act, not the freedom to pick your consequences.

Could you elaborate? Because it seems to quite blatantly state that God makes people obstinate (i.e unbelievers).

Originally Posted by Midna Fan

^To be fair, Christians ARE becoming more and more hated, it seems. We're constantly bashed by more and more people, and our rights and privileges to speak of God at all, even, in many places have been taken away, and ARE being taken away.

No, they really aren't.

When the money you use every day endorses your faith you really can't claim to be persecuted.

Now, in some Asian countries? Yes, there's persecution of Christians. But Christianity today is literally billions of times more accepted than it was two thousand years ago.

I mean, yeesh, you've got the wealthiest 1/3rd of the world's population claiming allegiance to your religion. That's not persecution. Even if 99% of those people are lying, they're still siding with your faith. You don't do that for persecuted minorities.

Originally Posted by Gamzee

Also, periodically my dad (who's an atheist, and I doubt he's even touched a bible) tells me there's one story in which Jesus pushes a kid off a roof and kills him. I always wondered if this is true, or is he just saying some random thing?

That'd be from one of the Gnostic gospels, I believe, which aren't considered cannon by any current branches of Christianity.

A fair number of Gnostic ideas continue to appear fairly often. They're an incredibly popular way to try to explain both the world as it is and the events of the Bible, but they are definitely also heresies.

Originally Posted by Raptor Buddha

This is an anecdote contained in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (note, not the different Gospel of Thomas). This work contains numerous accounts of Jesus' early life, and I think it's generally fair to describe Jesus in the account as a Loki-like trickster. The work is not considered part of the Biblical canon for both religious reasons, but also, I believe reasons involving authentication of the account. The account first appeared in, at the earliest, 80 AD. I think most scholars do not believe that this was written by the actual apostle Thomas (similar, to how many scholars dispute that the apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation).

Well, really, CE 80 is positively contemporary for the gospels. Most of 'em were written 'round 'bout then. What's more, it seems...very unlikely that most of the gospels were written by various apostles, barring the use of life-extending magic or time machines, for the same reason.

Still, the I-Gospel of Thomas is pretty radically different from the rest of the gospels. It's got Jesus doing all sorts of crazy things with his divine powers.

Originally Posted by !?

I have another question, why do some people treat Jesus like he's God, when he's human just like us?

Ah, welcome to quite possibly the easiest place to commit heresies.

The whole idea of the trinity is, quite frankly, weird. The idea is that Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit are both distinct and the same. Now, logically this is impossible, which is apparently part of the point.

Various attempts to rationalize this have been declared officially wrong (aka "heresies") by...pretty much all of the major faiths.

So, no, Jesus wasn't just a guy with a phone line to God.
Jesus also wasn't a separate divine entity that works with God.
Nor was he God just walking around.
Nor was he some hybrid God and not-God.
Nor was he not a hybrid God and not-God.

If your brain is hurting, then I've explained it correctly.

It is, literally, a "mystery". It's supposed to be an idea that the human mind cannot properly comprehend.

Originally Posted by Janus

Free will means you can choose how to act, not the freedom to pick your consequences.

I'd say that true, absolute, free will would grant you the right to chose consequences, but perhaps that's for a different thread.

Originally Posted by !?

So, was Mary Magdalene married to Jesus?

Quite Frankely.........No. Thats no where true of even proven.

Originally Posted by Skoomy

Could you elaborate? Because it seems to quite blatantly state that God makes people obstinate (i.e unbelievers).

I checked that verse in the KJV, and it was much different than what you quoted, with a foot note saying that the last part was a Greek phrase meaning that God lets us be who we choose to be.
I'll quote it properly later since I'm posting from my phone right now.

EDIT

Originally Posted by Romans 9:18

Therefore hath he amercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he bhardeneth.
-------
bGR leaves to stubbornness, hardness.

Originally Posted by Skoomy

[Romans 9:14-20]
How on earth does this allow for free will?

That's a very good and legitimate question.

Originally Posted by Romans 9:1-5 (NASB)

I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit, that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart.
For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

From the same chapter. The Israelites had everything laid out for them. They had the word of God. They had priests to teach them. They even had the explicit favor of God. But they still chose to reject His plan for them. That's a pretty good example of free will.

Romans 9 does not teach that God condemns people to hell from birth. It teaches that he makes obstinate those who he wants to make obstinate and he exalts those who he wants to exalt. It doesn't say He's unjust about it though. Pharaoh pretty obviously didn't want to follow God's will, so he used him as an example, provoking him to resist Moses. It made for a pgood example imo, since we're still talking about it thousands of years later.

But then again, Romans 11:7-8 says:

"The rest (i.e the Jews who rejected Christ) were made obstinate, as it is written: 'God gave them a spirit of lethargy--eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear--to this very day.' I do not want you to be ignorant of this secret: a blindness has come upon a part of Israel. "

Not really hard to see where Calvinists get their ideas from.

So, no, Jesus wasn't just a guy with a phone line to God.
Jesus also wasn't a separate divine entity that works with God.
Nor was he God just walking around.
Nor was he some hybrid God and not-God.
Nor was he not a hybrid God and not-God.

If your brain is hurting, then I've explained it correctly.

That's actually... very ignorant. And I don't mean that offensively at all. It just seems that you're not aware of what actually is supposed to be portrayed.

The concept of it all really does seem pretty simplistic to me, though that might be just me.

It's like, if you cut an apple in half, do you have two applies? No, you have one apple. Now, God can't really be quantified like that, but the principle is similar. Except you can't actually split God in half.

Part of God became human in the form of Jesus Christ. So that God is both human and god. But God is not a limited quantity. He can't be reduced, so he is still entirely God. And the part of him that became human (i.e Jesus) was entirely human, because God is omnipotent and can become human.

So:

He's not a guy with a phone line.

He wasn't a separate divinity.

He's not just God in human form. (He's God become human, not God wearing a skin suit.)

He's not a hybrid. He's entirely both. They're not mutually exclusive.

Nor was he not a hybrid God and not-God.

This is wrong actually. God is not a hybrid, and he is not not-God either.