Grasping "new" points when reading the Bible?

by GOrwell 9 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  GOrwell

  I'm always surprised when reading the Bible of things that I've missed or never saw in that manner before. How often does this happen to you?

  For instance, I've probably read the Book of John about 8-10 times. However, tonight when reading it, I read John 18:1-8, where Jesus is confronted with the mob who has come to arrest him. The mob confronts Jesus, and he asks them who they are looking for. They answer "Jesus the Nazarene." He confirms his identity by using the rather (in the minds of JWs at least) controversial answer of "I am [he]." This seems to inspire great fear, awe or reverence into the mob, and they "draw back and fall to the ground." Jesus confirms a 2nd time his identity by these same words that he used in John 8:58. Of course, it would seem reasonable that the mob were in fear because of the connection to God using that same Name to identify himself. (Ex 3:14)

  On a side note, the WT CDROM indicates that the mob fell to the ground because they were in shock over how calm and brave Jesus was in facing the mob. Now, what's more likely? That a large mob, including professional soldiers, is shocked over the lack of an emotional reaction of a soon-to-be prisoner in the middle of the night? Or the fact that this same prisoner invoked God's name as his identity and that scared the wits right out of them?

  So how often do you notice "new" things when reading the Bible?
• 

  acolytes

  The Book of John has Jesus use the phrase "Iam" on countless occassions.( Count them)

  Why? To me it suggests that the author wanted as to believe Jesis was God. If you read the other gospels will you come to this conclusion?

  The book of Mark was the first written gospel, where is the Virgin birth?

  Mathwer i believe is the only gospel to mention the resurrection of Lasurus? It also mention at Jesus death all the tombs opened and the dead saints were reserrected and went in to Jerusalem.(Do you believe that event happend?) Something the other gospels didnt mention. Why?

  So when i read the Bible independently yes i always find interesting "new things". In everything Paul wrote i realised he never mentiond any of the sayings of Jesus. no mention of the virgin birth. And the Jesus created by Paul seems far removed from the Jesus of the gospels. (Paul wrote his letters before the gospels were written)

  I could go on and on. Sadly independent reading has not strenghend my faith, as it has raised more questions than answers.

  Acolytes
• 

  acolytes

  Another interesting point to was a comparrison of the 2 accounts about Jesus and the rich- man (Who Jesus asked to give all his money to the poor)

  In one of the accounts after the rich man went away we are informed Jesus loved him. Those words give a completly different persective to the accounts.

  A. If divinely inspired why did only one gospel writter mention that Jesus loved the rich man?

  B. Could it be it was only the authors personal opinion that Jesus loved the richm man?

  C. Does adding that Jesus loved the rich man give a completly different dimension to the parable?

  The gospel writters created a differnt Jesus dependent on which gospel we read. If they stretched the truth or made events up they are con-artists. If they stated as facts things that were personal opinions, then they are still creating a false portait of Jesus. in my opinion if the gospel of Matthewwas inspired by god then "the dead saints did wake from the graves ( at Jesus death)and walk into jerusalem. Sadly i do not believe that event happened.

  Acolytes
• 

  ProdigalSon

  I spent nearly a lifetime constantly "grasping new points" and still "never getting the sense of it". Not until I approached the Bible with a gnostic point of view, in that I AM the Christ, my body is the Temple, and these are the challenges I must face if I ever want to be a "follower" of Christ. I can fully appreciate now what Jesus meant when he said that we are (potential) gods and that we would one day do all the things he did and more. Jesus was the only Master in the history of this world to attain 100 percent awakened consciousness compared to the 3 percent of the average human. He had 12 strands of fully activated DNA compared to our two. He had 7 fully opened and functioning chakras but this number actually becomes 12 because the middle five have front and rear openings. Jesus is the prototype model of what ALL followers of Christ will become. The Bible clearly says this in the book of Revelation where 144,000 join the Christ is Oneness and Essence, which of course is a symbolic number in kabbalah representing Divine Harmonic Resonance. Since the Christ is an energy that we all possess and all Masters have "Mastered", followers of Buddha and many others can reach the same goals, although it was Jesus of Nazareth that perfected and condensed the teachings into the most effective package.
• 

  Witness My Fury

  Exchanging one cult for another is no better than staying in the 1st one, you may change the view but the prison bars remain to spoil it.

  I like this quote by Robert Heinlein: "Once you can honestly say, 'I don't know,' ....then it becomes possible to get at the truth."

  Back on topic, I've read the bible more these last couple of years now that I am (re)searching and can honestly say that I have now lost my faith(mainly since reading the OT with an open mind). I read the gospels about 5 times, the NT about 3 times and am now halfway thru the OT.

  Gospels = a better appreciation for Jesus, but still could not square the GOD of the OT with what he offered.

  NT = total basterdisation of Christianity from the simplicity of Christ into a cult of control. (but very tame compared to the JW world if compared to it)

  OT = Myth, fantasy, wishful thinking, and the national centric war epics of Israel, which would be no different if we read them from the standpoint of the nations around them except the names of the gods would be different, but the wars, feats and miracles would likely be similar.

  I feel cheated.
• 

  Heaven

  Honestly, I don't read the Bible much. Life is very busy and I have other things to read that take priority. The Bible has never really resonated with me. Perhaps it is because the book of Genesis made me conclude that God has no frickin' idea what he is doing. Another part of the issue is that as a child, I was told what the Bible meant. But as I grew up, I did not agree with what I was being told. Most of us have been molded into a certain viewpoint regarding it as our parents and the Borg, as well as other influences, have tried to, and possibly succeeded in, shaping our understanding of what the Bible is saying.

  I think there is a huge difference between what you are told as a child versus what you discover as an adult.

  I believe we all get something different out of the Bible at different stages of our lives. Everyone seems to get a slightly different meaning out of it. We all know that anything and everything can be justified using the Bible.
• 

  Pahpa

  Most scholars admit that the trinity doctrine is not found in the NT. Quite to the

  contrary, Jesus is identified as the "son of God" ....not "God, the son." Scholars

  also admit that the teaching grew out of the neo-Platonic ideas brought into

  the early church by the influx of Gentiles who were influenced by Greek

  philosophy. (One can hardly imagine a Jewish believer accepting anything contrary to

  the belief "The LORD our God, the LORD is one.") Bible translators have tried to inject

  their own personal beliefs into their efforts. But a simple reading of the NT makes it

  clear that the "new" points are in fact the "old" points made by the trinitarians over

  the years. Early Christians understood the role of Jesus as the Son of God and his

  elevated position at the "right hand of God."
• 

  acolytes

  Hi Pahpa...You say most scholars admit the trinity doctrine is not found in the N.T.

  Is that a 51% or 60 % or 90% of MOST scholars?

  If a SIMPLE reading of the N.T makes it clear that the "new points" are in fact the "old" points.........then who needs scholars anyway?

  Acolytes
• 

  Pahpa

  Acolytes

  Most scholars, Catholic and Protestant, favor "orthodoxy". One only has to read their commentaries

  and encyclopedias to determine this. Most are trinitarians. So, their works reflect their personal

  preferences. I would not guess what percentage "most" would include. However, "most' will

  also admit that the trinity was not taught in the early church. It took nearly three centuries for

  the teaching to be refined and shaped. The fact that some Bishops and teachers rejected the

  doctrine illustrate that it was still in flux in Constantine's day and thereafter. It's interesting

  that it came into prominence as the Jewish influence in the early church diminished. Those

  trinitarian leaders went to great length to "prove" the scriptures upheld their beliefs...

  even inserting bogus scripture in some translations. (1 John 5:7) So, the "I am" theory

  is hardly a "new" point. It has been overworked by trinitarians for years. Like any

  publication, one has to be careful that it is not the author's opinion be it history or

  religion. One should not be intimidated by the words "scholar" or "intellectual."

  Read the Bible as it was written for the average hard working people with little

  education....not as the gnostics insisted that one needed the "key of knowledge" to

  understand it. Pahpa
• 

  Larsinger58

  The trinity reference is found in Revelation by identifying Christendom as the beast with the number 666. 666 is three numbers yet one number, the same as the trinity is three gods yet one god. So the trinity and its profound influence over Christendom is recognized in the Bible. The trinity is a difficult doctrine.

  LS