Is it possible for believers to believe the Bible has mistakes in it?

[Dr. Strange]

This is where you guys will start to get into the fallout of the council of 325.
They decided that Christ was to be a divine character and for the next few hundred years that thought process oozed its way into translations, creating all of this confusion. What possibly was never meant to be an express statement of Jesus as God became one.
You're not really going to be able to go forward unto you guys hold your own person council to try and determine whether or not the Council got it right... Everything you've learned, or has been taught, is riddled with about 1700 years worth of bias.

This is an excellent point. The Council of Nicaea established once and for all that Jesus was divine because nothing in the NT says that Jesus was divine. What you've brought up is the making of the Roman Catholic Church, of doctrine, the beginning of modern day Christianity. What this says is that Jesus never considered himself divine or God. Nor did the Early Church.

 

[Dr. Strange]

There's also Jeremiah 1:5: Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. And before you were born, I consecrated you and appointed you as a prophet...
Psalm 139:13: You formed my inward parts; you wove me in my mother's womb.
and verse 16: before you were born, I set you apart.

Again, the interpretation of Genesis 1: 27, 5: 1 speaks to man's creation to be the likeness of God, God's Spirit and here in the OT quotes, refers to a separation of someone for divine service.
Or, it can be about a community of believers, as in, the one and only Catholic Church. I hope you got that sarcasm. But then, I meant it to exemplify how something so sacred can to wrong. And, please, pay close attention to the meaning of words. Look up sacred and see if your definition, understanding of sacred is correct. I choose my words carefully and with purpose.

 

[Dr. Strange]

And, since the very beginning, one learns about Jesus from church authorities. Since the church has been proclaimed as "the body of Christ," Jesus has given authority to its leaders to pass along his teachings. Therefore, when the church speaks, Christ speaks.

So you say. More sarcasm. But then, prove to yourself that what the Church teaches is God speaking.

 

[Dr. Strange]

Leading biblical scholars don't agree. But of course, you completely dismiss them -- even though they're the ones who have made it possible for you to read the bible in English in the first place. The NWT is more a paraphrase (even though it states differently), than it is a translation.

I like what you are saying. Hope you don't mind my interjecting points.

 

[Dr. Strange]

Acts 10:21

21 - Then Peter went down to the men which were sent unto him from Cornelius; and said, Behold, I am he whom ye seek: what is the cause wherefore ye are come?

or

21 - Hey guys. What's going on?

I don't particularly have a problem with paraphrased Bibles...

Neither do I until the paraphrased passage steps totally away from the true meaning. The most blatant examples have to do with marriage and homosexuality. Neither were words in the original texts. Most paraphrased Bibles say the same thing as any other Bible.

 

[savagewind]

I should probably read that Didache.

 

[sojourner]

This is an excellent point. The Council of Nicaea established once and for all that Jesus was divine because nothing in the NT says that Jesus was divine. What you've brought up is the making of the Roman Catholic Church, of doctrine, the beginning of modern day Christianity. What this says is that Jesus never considered himself divine or God. Nor did the Early Church.

That's not quite true. While it is true that the texts never explicitly say that Jesus is Divine, it is implied -- and quite heavily implied. Take, for example, Luke's shameless ripoff of Augustus' "divine birth" narrative, the resurrection and ascension, John 1, Jesus' assertion that "I and the Father are one." All of this suggests that the writers though Jesus had some sort of Divine nature.

Further, 325 happened before the RCC happened. At that time, the church hadn't split East/West, so it was still "the church."

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This is an excellent point. The Council of Nicaea established once and for all that Jesus was divine because nothing in the NT says that Jesus was divine. What you've brought up is the making of the Roman Catholic Church, of doctrine, the beginning of modern day Christianity. What this says is that Jesus never considered himself divine or God. Nor did the Early Church.

26 Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” - John 20:26-28

Please, let's stop this nonsense thinking that there's nothing in the Bible that says that Christ is God. Go brush up on your Biblical knowledge.

 

[sojourner]

Again, the interpretation of Genesis 1: 27, 5: 1 speaks to man's creation to be the likeness of God, God's Spirit and here in the OT quotes, refers to a separation of someone for divine service.
Or, it can be about a community of believers, as in, the one and only Catholic Church. I hope you got that sarcasm. But then, I meant it to exemplify how something so sacred can to wrong. And, please, pay close attention to the meaning of words. Look up sacred and see if your definition, understanding of sacred is correct. I choose my words carefully and with purpose.

You needn't lecture me on word meanings. I have a seminary degree and years of professional ministry that insures I'm in the know. My point was that the bible does in fact allude to the notion that God knows about our future, since it is God that makes us sacred -- or sets us apart -- for ministry. That divine call not only sets us apart practically for certain work, it is also formational, that is, it changes who we are -- makes us become someone different, just as Jacob became Israel, a people set apart as specially favored.

 

[sojourner]

So you say. More sarcasm. But then, prove to yourself that what the Church teaches is God speaking.

I'm not the one who insists that the church is the body of Christ, nor am I the one who insists that Jesus breathed Spirit into the assembly and gave them divine authority.

 

[savagewind]

That's not quite true. While it is true that the texts never explicitly say that Jesus is Divine, it is implied -- and quite heavily implied. Take, for example, Luke's shameless ripoff of Augustus' "divine birth" narrative, the resurrection and ascension, John 1, Jesus' assertion that "I and the Father are one." All of this suggests that the writers though Jesus had some sort of Divine nature.

Further, 325 happened before the RCC happened. At that time, the church hadn't split East/West, so it was still "the church."

Adam and Eve were one also. Same?

 

[savagewind]

26 Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” - John 20:26-28

Please, let's stop this nonsense thinking that there's nothing in the Bible that says that Christ is God. Go brush up on your Biblical knowledge.

Does Thomas thinking Jesus is God make Jesus God? How please?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Does Thomas thinking Jesus is God make Jesus God? How please?

If Thomas was wrong, Jesus would've corrected him. There's also John 1:1 - "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

[savagewind]

If Thomas was wrong, Jesus would've corrected him. There's also John 1:1 - "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Jesus might have corrected him. Who wrote the account?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Jesus might have corrected him. Who wrote the account?

If He did correct Thomas, it would've been recorded. Traditionally, the Apostle St. John is the author of it.

 

[savagewind]

If He did correct Thomas, it would've been recorded. Traditionally, the Apostle St. John is the author of it.

Sure, It would have been recorded. So? Why isn't it recorded which is the correct way to worship God?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Sure, It would have been recorded. So? Why isn't it recorded which is the correct way to worship God?

I think that if Jesus wasn't God, it would've been made clear. Instead, we have a number of verses that proclaim Him to be God. I really don't understand how Unitarians get around all those verses (I know that the New World Translation just incorrectly translates some of them to get around them, though). It's mind-boggling to me.

 

[psychoslice]

True Christians are 100% in agreement-1Corinthians 1:10------ its the illusion of what one is told that is Christian that you speak of. There is no disunity with the followers of Jesus. One religion.

You don't seem to know much about religion ?.

 

[psychoslice]

That is becasue they are people, like everyone else

Yes dogmatic and fundamentalist people.

 

[savagewind]

I think that if Jesus wasn't God, it would've been made clear. Instead, we have a number of verses that proclaim Him to be God. I really don't understand how Unitarians get around all those verses (I know that the New World Translation just incorrectly translates some of them to get around them, though). It's mind-boggling to me.

Except it is mind boggling to us to see you get around all the verses which say he isn't God.