Does Jesus want us to interpret the Bible individually?
913416
No he does not, that is why when one of his disciples was walking along the road and someone was reading Scripture and the Lord told him to hurry to catch up with the guy and the Apostle asked the guy what he was reading and the guy told him but, asked the explanation of it the Apostle then explained it. This is to show us that we need his church to interpret it correctly. I mean look at all the varying interpretations here on this site
436919
Should You Believe in the Trinity? \n\nWhat Does the Bible Say About God and Jesus?  \n \n\n\nIF PEOPLE were to read the Bible from cover to cover without any preconceived idea of a Trinity, would they arrive at such a concept on their own? Not at all. \n\nWhat comes through very clearly to an impartial reader is that God alone is the Almighty, the Creator, separate and distinct from anyone else, and that Jesus, even in his prehuman existence, is also separate and distinct, a created being, subordinate to God. \n\nGod Is One, Not Three\n \n \n\n\nTHE Bible teaching that God is one is called monotheism. And L. L. Paine, professor of ecclesiastical history, indicates that monotheism in its purest form does not allow for a Trinity: "The Old Testament is strictly monotheistic. God is a single personal being. The idea that a trinity is to be found there . . . is utterly without foundation." \n\nWas there any change from monotheism after Jesus came to the earth? Paine answers: "On this point there is no break between the Old Testament and the New. The monotheistic tradition is continued. Jesus was a Jew, trained by Jewish parents in the Old Testament scriptures. His teaching was Jewish to the core; a new gospel indeed, but not a new theology. . . . And he accepted as his own belief the great text of Jewish monotheism: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one God.'" \n\nThose words are found at Deuteronomy 6:4. The Catholic New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) here reads: "Listen, Israel: Yahweh our God is the one, the only Yahweh."* In the grammar of that verse, the word "one" has no plural modifiers to suggest that it means anything but one individual. \n\nThe Christian apostle Paul did not indicate any change in the nature of God either, even after Jesus came to the earth. He wrote: "God is only one."—Galatians 3:20; see also 1 Corinthians 8:4-6. \n\nThousands of times throughout the Bible, God is spoken of as one person. When he speaks, it is as one undivided individual. The Bible could not be any clearer on this. As God states: "I am Jehovah. That is my name; and to no one else shall I give my own glory." (Isaiah 42:8) "I am Yahweh your God . . . You shall have no gods except me." (Italics ours.)—Exodus 20:2, 3, JB. \n\nWhy would all the God-inspired Bible writers speak of God as one person if he were actually three persons? What purpose would that serve, except to mislead people? Surely, if God were composed of three persons, he would have had his Bible writers make it abundantly clear so that there could be no doubt about it. At least the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures who had personal contact with God's own Son would have done so. But they did not. \n\nInstead, what the Bible writers did make abundantly clear is that God is one Person—a unique, unpartitioned Being who has no equal: "I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. With the exception of me there is no God." (Isaiah 45:5) "You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth."—Psalm 83:18. \n\nNot a Plural God\n \n \n\n\nJESUS called God "the only true God." (John 17:3) Never did he refer to God as a deity of plural persons. That is why nowhere in the Bible is anyone but Jehovah called Almighty. Otherwise, it voids the meaning of the word "almighty." Neither Jesus nor the holy spirit is ever called that, for Jehovah alone is supreme. At Genesis 17:1 he declares: "I am God Almighty." And Exodus 18:11 says: "Jehovah is greater than all the other gods." \n\nIn the Hebrew Scriptures, the word ´eloh'ah (god) has two plural forms, namely, ´elo·him' (gods) and ´elo·heh' (gods of). These plural forms generally refer to Jehovah, in which case they are translated in the singular as "God." Do these plural forms indicate a Trinity? No, they do not. In A Dictionary of the Bible, William
1063743
Christ speaks about being the Head of the Church. Notice that He says in Matthew 16:18 ...I will build "MY" church. In several other verses (to find them just look in the concordance of your Bible), He refers to "a" church or "the" church. These words are singular. He never says anywhere "all the churches" or "all the different congregations". I think God only intended for there to be one church. Man has created his own church to suit his own needs. I think it is important to find a church that preaches what the Bible says. ONLY what the Bible says. So many today add to the words of God and take from them as well.
1135587
It is my understanding that:\n\nActually, NONE of the gospels are the direct words of Jesus.  They were all written a couple generations after (Luke and Mark weren't even apostles!).\n\nThe Gnostic Gospels were not included into the bible because they preach a more self-sufficient version of Christianity, where the person, not the church, is responsible for their relationship with God.  They refer to Christianity in a similar sense as modern buddhism.\n\nIt is MY belief (and I emphasize belief, as no one knows for sure) that the gnostic gospels were excluded from the bible because:\n\n- They de-emphasize the church...therefore leaving less influenece, power, and control over the religion for the church\n\n- They emphasize a more "inner religion", where its not about what the religion as a whole wants or believes, but rather the individual person.  This can be deeply fulfilling for an individual, or very unnerving as there would be little unison and coordination in the religion.\n\n- They did not properly imply the possibility that Jesus was God.
179733
well go to the head of the class Watson... Everything in the bible is about a ONE on One relationship with the Father, That is why Jesus said that "I and the Father are One", In other places he said that "He was first among MANY Brothern" But it seems too Radical for someone to believe that Jesus Christ was a Tax Protestor, He wouldn't worship MAN himself, in his day and time the GOD was Ceasar. He wouldn't bow down to the church/state system of Rule and because of his belief, they killed him "they were doing their JOB"....The same Anti-christ, Anti-God system still exist today, and the biblical persecutor's also
1172797
Another pick and chose from your part eh? Why don't you believe the bible as whole instead of picking and choosing verses that you think justifies the violent works of your faith? That's too hypocritical to get some bible verse yet deny the rest. This isn't a prophecy, this is a form of praise. Did you analyze this verse yourself, it talks about Israel, are you an israelite? Jesus is the KIng of Zion no other else.
422737
Jesus loves everybody and that is why He came to earth.  The time of salvation is NOW.  You have a choice right now. God is not an evil taskmaster.  He wants us to come to Him on our own.  What kind of loving relationship would it be if it were forced?   \n\nWhy should He not judge?  I have heard it said that if God does NOT judge us then He owes Soddom and Gomorrah an apology!  And he will judge rightly, because He can see each mans heart.  Nothing is hidden.  He will judge each one of us.  Some to everlasting life and some to everlasting darkenss.  You will not be able to say in that day "I never knew" or "I never had the chance to know God"  Your time is now.\n\nI love this description of Jesus!  There is also another description of this in Revelation  19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.\n\n\nRev 19:12 His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.\n\n\nRev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.\n\n\nRev 19:14 And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.\n\n\nRev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.\n\n\nRev 19:16 And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.\n\nWill you be ready?  I am.
276231
Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?\n\nIF THE Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God’s revelation of himself to mankind. And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is.\n\nFirst-century believers accepted the Scriptures as the authentic revelation of God. It was the basis for their beliefs, the final authority. For example, when the apostle Paul preached to people in the city of Beroea, “they received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind, carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.”—Acts 17:10, 11.\n\nWhat did prominent men of God at that time use as their authority? Acts 17:2, 3 tells us: “According to Paul’s custom . . . he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving by references [from the Scriptures].”\n\nJesus himself set the example in using the Scriptures as the basis for his teaching, repeatedly saying: “It is written.” “He interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures.”—Matthew 4:4, 7; Luke 24:27.\n\nThus Jesus, Paul, and first-century believers used the Scriptures as the foundation for their teaching. They knew that “all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 Timothy 3:16, 17; see also 1 Corinthians 4:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21.\n\nSince the Bible can ‘set things straight,’ it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is claimed to be. But do theologians and historians themselves say that it is clearly a Bible teaching?\n\n“Trinity” in the Bible?\n\nA PROTESTANT publication states: “The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.” (The Illustrated Bible Dictionary) And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity “is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God.”—New Catholic Encyclopedia.\n\nThe Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: “In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word τρίας [tri′as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian.”\n\nHowever, this is no proof in itself that Tertullian taught the Trinity. The Catholic work Trinitas—A Theological Encyclopedia of the Holy Trinity, for example, notes that some of Tertullian’s words were later used by others to describe the Trinity. Then it cautions: “But hasty conclusions cannot be drawn from usage, for he does not apply the words to Trinitarian theology.”\n\nTestimony of the Hebrew Scriptures\n\nWHILE the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible, is at least the idea of the Trinity taught clearly in it? For instance, what do the Hebrew Scriptures (“Old Testament”) reveal?\n\nThe Encyclopedia of Religion admits: “Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.” And the New Catholic Encyclopedia also says: “The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament].”\n\nSimilarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits: “The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the “Old Testament”] suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the
510105
Matthew 15:22 - 28. A Canaanite woman begs Jesus for help with her daughter, who is possessed. He tells her that he was sent only to help the lost sheep of Israel, because:\n"It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs." -Mat 15:26 (NIV)\n\nDo any of you "Christians" actually read the Bible, or do you just go around insisting that other people read it?
902449
No. I can't. \n\nI have to base my judgements on what I read in the bible and how I interpret it. \n\nI DO believe (for certain) one thing: \n\nGod loves us (ALL) therefore, once we accept that: \n\nWe have to love ourselves\n\nThen we have to love others as we love ourselves\n\nTHAT pretty much wraps it up.\n \nIf we treat others, regardless of whether we like them or not, how we want to be treated, if we love ourselves, odds are we'll do the right thing. \n\nThe rest is just semantics.
742993
I think that this is the biggest problem with Christianity.  If you take the whole bible literally, than you aren’t making any logical sense, but it you take parts of it metaphorically than you have to pick and chose which parts to take seriously.\n\nIt’s all pretty self-serving if you ask me.
1182052
There would be no need for Jesus to have his mother give prophecies, the Bible is complete.\n\nRevelation is inspired of God. Who would dare change a word of what God himself has spoken and transmitted through the one who is now the reigning King, Jesus Christ? Certainly, such a person would deserve to lose out in the quest for life and suffer the plagues that must come upon Babylon the Great which is false religion  and upon the whole world.
575223
Sure looks that way, don't it?  I mean, the Christians even include the entire Jewish Bible in their own, along with considering the divinity of Jesus in the light of old testament prophecies which he fulfilled.  He did indeed sound like something of a reformer, but the one who actually said it was no longer necessary to follow the old Jewish law was Saul of Tarsus aka Saint Paul.  That was after Jesus had died and gone to heaven.
374377
YES I DO! I KNOW THAT IT HAS BEEN RE-WROTE OVER AND OVER, BUT I ONLY READ KJV BIBLE BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF THE EARLIEST VERSIONS. SOME SAY KJV IS TO HARD TO UNDERSTAND BUT IT IS WROTE ON A 8TH GRADE LEVEL. SO ANY BODY COULD UNDERSTAND THAT. I BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE BECAUSE I HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS CHRIST AND I CAN FEEL HIM IN MY HEART AND SOUL.
795419
Actually, I think it would be quite difficult to "understand" the Bible as each concept that is presented is contradicted by another.  It's hard to understand a book that has no clear message.
127555
No but some christians do have the bible so far up there ass that they can see anything else. I am a christian but I do not believe in pushing my beliefs on someone else or got all irate about how someone else believes or acts. I am only responsible for myself and can only make decisions for myself.
1184102
You are right it is there in black and white. instead of reading for themselves most allow themselves to be lead by another who most likely has his own ideas and traditions of men. and don't forget for almost all religions there is money involved. We can figure the Bible out just read it , it is so simple to understand.