Has it been changed?

alice wrote:

Most religions I am familiar with teach the doctrine of the Trinity.

Alice, I posted this on a different thread, See if it makes sense to you;

Back to the trinity; Remember, we are assuming Jesus, and God are the same person.

When Jesus was praying, who was he praying to, himself?
Why Jesus said, "The Father is greater than I?" Why did he not say, "I am greater than me."
Why Jesus said, "Do not pray to me, but through me to the father?" Why did he not say, " Do not pray to me, but pray to me through me"
When Jesus said, "You can not come to me, unless the father has sent you?" Why did he not say, "You can not come to me, unless I have sent you."
Right before Jesus death he looked up and said, "Father why have you forsaken me?" "Why did he not say, "Self, why have you forsaken yourself."

If Jesus and God the Father are the same person, would he not have been talking to himself, or about himself? if so, those statements don't make sense.

This power the Catholic church calls the Holy Ghost...it is not a ghost, it is Gods acting force,

Most religions who use the trinity base it of a scripture which reads, "The father, and I are one." This sounds like they are the same person...but is that what he meant?

Three thousand people were baptized in one day. Jesus said, "Father, let these be one with me, as I am with you." Again, is he talking to himself? and if the trinity were true, would not those three thousand now also be God?

Since God is not a mere "being," as such, but is, instead the Source of All Being or Being Itself, we can perceive this Source in different forms. The Trinity refers to three forms that God can take on: In a transcendent form (out there or above), we percieve a Father, or the Creator of beings. God becomes Incarnate - having the appearance of a being, the Son, and Immanent (within the heart of beings) as the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

There is a more complete discussion of the Trinity in this post.

alj wrote:

Since God is not a mere "being," as such, but is, instead the Source of All Being or Being Itself, we can perceive this Source in different forms.  The Trinity refers to three forms that God can take on: In a transcendent form (out there or above), we percieve a Father, or the Creator of beings.  God becomes Incarnate - having the appearance of a being, the Son, and Immanent (within the heart of beings) as the Holy Ghost/Spirit.

There is a more complete discussion of the Trinity  in this post.

If that were true why would Jesus have said what he did as I posted?

That question has nothing to do with the concept of a Truine God.

Dom,
The doctrine of the Trinity I am acquainted with assumes there are three separate persons comprising a Godhead.  They are one in purpose.

alice wrote:

Dom,
The doctrine of the Trinity I am acquainted with assumes there are three separate persons comprising a Godhead.  They are one in purpose.

The word trinity is not in the bible. I do agree, Jesus, and God the father have one purpose. When religions say things Like, "God came to earth as a Human, or Mary is the mother of God," it is saying God, and Jesus are the same person, which is not true.
I find it strange that those who do not believe the Bible is Gods word, argue for the trinity?

The Bible is a Holy Book. It tells the story of the Judeo-Christian people from pre-historical times through the early Christian Era. It is probably the most significant and influential book from the time period for all Western culture. It has been read and interpreted by a countless number of people who revere it as the basis for their religious and spiritual beliefs.

It was compiled over a period of many years, based on selected works which were circulating at the time. Even the oldest pre-biblical and extra-biblical written records which went into the book we know today as the Bible were not more than a few hundred years old during the compilation period which comprised roughly the first 300 years of the Christian Era. There is no original form of the work in existence. Therefore, all we can know of it comes from various translations.

If, by the term, "God's Word," you are saying that every word in the book we call the Bible is factual history, you are greatly limiting the number of those who consider it the Holy Source for their beliefs, and, in doing so, you are limiting the power of this most important source for Divine Inspiration for two of the world's major religions, and an important source for at least two more.

One of the better-known passages from the New Testament says that we should not judge others, that doing so can bring about our own judgement. For one or a few to decide that their interpretation, based on their own limited perspective, is the only valid interpretation, seems to me to be a severe form of judgement.

But again, that's just my view.

alj,

If what I quote from the Bible judges religions, or persons, so be it. Your post would than be judging the bible.

Which Bible, Domenic? You have told us that the official Bible has been altered in places, that the "real" Bible is based on the scrolls from the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi, but those are incomplete fragments, so how do you choose which parts are to believed and which are not?

alj wrote:

Which Bible, Domenic?  You have told us that the official Bible has been altered in places, that the "real" Bible is based on the scrolls from the Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi, but those are incomplete fragments, so how do you choose which parts are to believed and which are not?

The King James was written from the scrolls. There were some changes made in this from the scrolls. For many years the Catholic Church made claim some parts of the scrolls had been changed, and they just made correction. When the Dead Sea scrolls were compared to the scrolls, it confirmed the scrolls had not been changed.



You stated this is going no place...why do you keep coming back for more?

What "scrolls"?  The Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi texts were not discovered until the 20th century.  The KJV was a translation from existing Greek and Hebrew translations, compiled by a group of biblical scholars from the Church of England between 1601 and 1611.

alj wrote:

What "scrolls"?  The Dead Sea and Nag Hammadi texts were not discovered until the 20th century.  The KJV was a translation from existing Greek and Hebrew translations, compiled by a group of biblical scholars from the Church of England between 1601 and 1611.

Is English your second language? Do you not understand anything I say?

Let me say it again;

The KJ was written from the scrolls.

A much older second set of scrolls, (The Dead Sea Scrolls) were found in our time. They match the scrolls the KJ was taken from. Both sets of scrolls matched, proving the set the Bible was taken from had not been changed.

I put that as simple as I know how. You were a teacher for 25 years, you should be able to understand it? Is there some problem I don’t know about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

Quote :

The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611.[2] First printed by the King's Printer Robert Barker,[3][4] this was the third translation into English to be approved by the English Church authorities. The first was the Great Bible commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII (1535),[5] and the second was the Bishops' Bible of 1568.[6] In January 1604, King James VI and I convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,[7] a faction within the Church of England.[8]

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.[9] The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.[10] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek and Latin......
James' instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the Bishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible.
For their Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5),[120] but adjusted this to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached a Christological interpretation.[121] For example, the Septuagint reading "They pierced my hands and my feet" was used in Psalm 22:16 (vs. the Masoretes' reading of the Hebrew "like lions my hands and feet"[122]). Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation – especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such as Kimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in the Masoretic Text;[123] earlier versions had been more likely to adopt LXX or Vulgate readings in such places.
...........................................
New Testament[edit]
For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza,[124] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations.[125] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.[126] For example, at John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[127]

4/7/2014

                             It's over !

                              Joe................ 

Reference the title to this thread, I think it is still changing.  As our language acquires new meanings/nuances so does the interpretation.  This thread is a good example of that.

You guys sure are fun to watch!

Don Stephens wrote:

You guys sure are fun to watch!

Hahahahaha..... it's always the same people. All one has to do is print the word, "Bible," or "God," and the two come alive. One believes they will become part of the universe, and the other can hold conversations with the dead.
Watch the reaction this post gets...LOL.

Don Stephens wrote:

You guys sure are fun to watch!

Join in the fun---the more, the merrier.

I went to Church school for 13 years and was fully indoctrinated  in the beliefs of a church.

I wish I had been taught more about kindness, gentleness and good will to all.

So true.

4/8/2014

                    I went to Religious Instructions when I was 12 at our Catholic Parish,
                    many times sitting and listening to Sister Agatha it didn't make sense
                    and I thought to myself I don't believe God is this way, to me he would
                    be loving, caring and not look down on people. I always believed what 
                    my step-father told me " Hell is right here on earth."  I believe that because
                    man can be visious, cruel and evil towards other people, just look at history.

                                                        Cheers..Joe.. 

joefrank wrote:

4/8/2014

                    I went to Religious Instructions when I was 12 at our Catholic Parish,
                    many times sitting and listening to Sister Agatha it didn't make sense
                    and I thought to myself I don't believe God is this way, to me he would
                    be loving, caring and not look down on people. I always believed what 
                    my step-father told me " Hell is right here on earth."  I believe that because
                    man can be visious, cruel and evil towards other people, just look at history.

                                                        Cheers..Joe.. 

Was your step-father right? The English word Hell comes from the word Hades...which means, "The common grave of man."

Hades was the Greek god of the underworld.  As with most mythology, people feel free to alter the meaning to suit their needs.

4/8/2014

                I believe God is all knowing, all loving. I sometimes why does God 
                allow brutual dictators, etc. to be born ? Then again maybe it's to
                teach the human race a lesson ? I'm afraid we don't have those 
                answers. Another strange question over the centuries millions of
                humans have died, is heaven that big to hold that many people or
                is their another demension we go to ? Just asking..

                                                Cheers..Joe... 

The Bible's ungodly origins.

Read this: http://www.deism.com/bibleorigins.htm

Don't have an answer, Joe, but this might help.

A few years ago I was attending a SS class when one of the other students asked our rector, who was teaching the class, whether or not people who had died went to heaven immediately or whether they had to wait until Judgement Day. He tok a moment to respond. It was a difficult question since the woman asking believed the Bible literally.

He responded by pointing to Einstein's theory of relativity and how that related to the concept of eternity. He said that the concepts of time and space were limited to our lives on earth. He added that eternity was not an extension of linear time, but to the absence of time. So, he told her, the question was moot. It did not matter which interpretation was correct, since those who had died were outside of time.

I know that doesn't address your question directly, but, to my thinking, it suggests that your idea of another dimension is a strong possibility.

Just me.