Resolution - to read the Bible
- Thread starter Seeler
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
GeoFee
I am who I am becoming...
John presents a book of signs, metaphors revealing what cannot be defined or confined by the rational mind. I find it instructive as we notice the deterioration of our economic, political and religious structures. Surely bankers and merchants will be deeply grieved by what is approaching from the future. Same with institutional religions in collusion with them. Not so with citizens of the heavenly realms. This pointing us to: “Rethink your priorities and commitments. Take hold of the heavenly realm which is within reach.”
All of us are now pretty much managed by the computer reading of bar codes. Those having no bar code find access to the necessities of life next to impossible.
A few impressions from my point of view,
George
All of us are now pretty much managed by the computer reading of bar codes. Those having no bar code find access to the necessities of life next to impossible.
A few impressions from my point of view,
George
blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
If you think about it logically, johns vision is quite logical , power on the planet in all its “isims” is centralizing, it has been since the confounding of language at the tower of Babel, humanity is becoming one, except for those who believe and follow Gods Truth , the choice will be mans truth vs Gods Truth, and thus we will have gog against magog and no flesh would survive this war until the king Of Peace comes.
unsafe
Well-Known Member
What are Gog and Magog?
Question: "What are Gog and Magog?"
Answer: Historically speaking, Magog was a grandson of Noah (Genesis 10:2). The descendants of Magog settled to the far north of Israel, likely in Europe and northern Asia (Ezekiel 38:2). Magog seems to be used to refer to "northern barbarians" in general, but likely also has a connection to Magog the person. The people of Magog are described as skilled warriors (Ezekiel 38:15; 39:3-9).
Gog and Magog are referred to in Ezekiel 38-39 and in Revelation 20:7-8. While these two instances carry the same names, a close study of Scripture clearly demonstrates they do not refer to the same people and events. In Ezekiel’s prophecy, Gog will be the leader of a great army that attacks the land of Israel. Gog is described as “of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal” (Ezekiel 38:2-3). Ezekiel's battle of Gog and Magog occurs in the tribulation period, more specifically in the first 3 1/2 years. The strongest evidence for this view is that the attack will come when Israel is at peace (Ezekiel 38:8, 11). The description from Ezekiel is that of a nation that has security and has laid down its defenses. Israel is definitely not at peace now, and it is inconceivable that the nation would lay down its defenses apart from some major event. When Israel's covenant with the Beast/Antichrist is in effect at the beginning of Daniel's 70th Week (also known as the 7-year tribulation, Daniel 9:27a), Israel will be at peace. Possibly the battle will occur just before the midpoint of the seven-year period. According to Ezekiel, Gog will be defeated by God Himself on the mountains of Israel. The slaughter will be so great it will take seven months to bury all of the dead (Ezekiel 39:11-12).
Gog and Magog are mentioned again in Revelation 20:7-8. The duplicated use of the names Gog and Magog in Revelation 20:8-9 is to show that these people demonstrate the same rebellion against God and antagonism toward God as those in Ezekiel 38-39. It is similar to someone today calling a person "the devil" because he or she is sinful and evil. We know that person is not really Satan, but because that person shares similar characteristics, he or she might be referred to as "the devil."
The book of Revelation uses Ezekiel's prophecy about Magog to portray a final end-times attack on the nation of Israel (Revelation 20:8-9). The result of this battle is that all are destroyed, and Satan will find his final place in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10).
It is important to recognize that the Gog and Magog of Ezekiel 38-39 is quite different from the one in Revelation 20:7-8. Below are some of the more obvious reasons why these refer to different people and battles.
1. In the battle of Ezekiel 38-39, the armies come primarily from the north and involve only a few nations of the earth (Ezekiel 38:6, 15; 39:2). The battle in Revelation 20:7-9 will involve all nations, so armies will come from all directions, not just from the north.
2. There is no mention of Satan in the context of Ezekiel 38-39. In Revelation 20:7 the context clearly places the battle at the end of the millennium with Satan as the primary character.
3. Ezekiel 39:11-12 states that the dead will be buried for seven months. There would be no need to bury the dead if the battle in Ezekiel 38-39 is the one described in Revelation 20:8-9, for immediately following Revelation 20:8-9 is the Great White Throne judgment (20:11-15) and then the current or present heaven and earth are destroyed, replaced by a new heaven and earth (Revelation 21:1). There obviously will be a need to bury the dead if the battle takes place in the early part of the tribulation, for the land of Israel will be occupied for another 1,000 years, the length of the millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:4-6).
4. The battle in Ezekiel 38-39 is used by God to bring Israel back to Him (Ezekiel 39:21-29). In Revelation 20, Israel has been faithful to God for 1,000 years (the millennial kingdom). Those in Revelation 20:7-10 who are rebellious are destroyed without any more opportunity for repentance.
Question: "What are Gog and Magog?"
Answer: Historically speaking, Magog was a grandson of Noah (Genesis 10:2). The descendants of Magog settled to the far north of Israel, likely in Europe and northern Asia (Ezekiel 38:2). Magog seems to be used to refer to "northern barbarians" in general, but likely also has a connection to Magog the person. The people of Magog are described as skilled warriors (Ezekiel 38:15; 39:3-9).
Gog and Magog are referred to in Ezekiel 38-39 and in Revelation 20:7-8. While these two instances carry the same names, a close study of Scripture clearly demonstrates they do not refer to the same people and events. In Ezekiel’s prophecy, Gog will be the leader of a great army that attacks the land of Israel. Gog is described as “of the land of Magog, the prince of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal” (Ezekiel 38:2-3). Ezekiel's battle of Gog and Magog occurs in the tribulation period, more specifically in the first 3 1/2 years. The strongest evidence for this view is that the attack will come when Israel is at peace (Ezekiel 38:8, 11). The description from Ezekiel is that of a nation that has security and has laid down its defenses. Israel is definitely not at peace now, and it is inconceivable that the nation would lay down its defenses apart from some major event. When Israel's covenant with the Beast/Antichrist is in effect at the beginning of Daniel's 70th Week (also known as the 7-year tribulation, Daniel 9:27a), Israel will be at peace. Possibly the battle will occur just before the midpoint of the seven-year period. According to Ezekiel, Gog will be defeated by God Himself on the mountains of Israel. The slaughter will be so great it will take seven months to bury all of the dead (Ezekiel 39:11-12).
Gog and Magog are mentioned again in Revelation 20:7-8. The duplicated use of the names Gog and Magog in Revelation 20:8-9 is to show that these people demonstrate the same rebellion against God and antagonism toward God as those in Ezekiel 38-39. It is similar to someone today calling a person "the devil" because he or she is sinful and evil. We know that person is not really Satan, but because that person shares similar characteristics, he or she might be referred to as "the devil."
The book of Revelation uses Ezekiel's prophecy about Magog to portray a final end-times attack on the nation of Israel (Revelation 20:8-9). The result of this battle is that all are destroyed, and Satan will find his final place in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10).
It is important to recognize that the Gog and Magog of Ezekiel 38-39 is quite different from the one in Revelation 20:7-8. Below are some of the more obvious reasons why these refer to different people and battles.
1. In the battle of Ezekiel 38-39, the armies come primarily from the north and involve only a few nations of the earth (Ezekiel 38:6, 15; 39:2). The battle in Revelation 20:7-9 will involve all nations, so armies will come from all directions, not just from the north.
2. There is no mention of Satan in the context of Ezekiel 38-39. In Revelation 20:7 the context clearly places the battle at the end of the millennium with Satan as the primary character.
3. Ezekiel 39:11-12 states that the dead will be buried for seven months. There would be no need to bury the dead if the battle in Ezekiel 38-39 is the one described in Revelation 20:8-9, for immediately following Revelation 20:8-9 is the Great White Throne judgment (20:11-15) and then the current or present heaven and earth are destroyed, replaced by a new heaven and earth (Revelation 21:1). There obviously will be a need to bury the dead if the battle takes place in the early part of the tribulation, for the land of Israel will be occupied for another 1,000 years, the length of the millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:4-6).
4. The battle in Ezekiel 38-39 is used by God to bring Israel back to Him (Ezekiel 39:21-29). In Revelation 20, Israel has been faithful to God for 1,000 years (the millennial kingdom). Those in Revelation 20:7-10 who are rebellious are destroyed without any more opportunity for repentance.
Seeler's post is inundated with rabid dogma ... and no wander NG's!
Humor less straight liners ... no Jacks or Jokers permitted ... all is cereus ... and waxed ... wack'd out of it by stoic formation that's hard luck ... calls for some disorder and Floe ...
Change creeps as it could introduce alien knowledge ... fear glows!
Humor less straight liners ... no Jacks or Jokers permitted ... all is cereus ... and waxed ... wack'd out of it by stoic formation that's hard luck ... calls for some disorder and Floe ...
Change creeps as it could introduce alien knowledge ... fear glows!
Seeler
Well-Known Member
Well that was interesting!
Early in January I made a resolution to read the entire Bible in one year. I completed it in 11 months. Actually a week or so less than 11 months.
Much of it was familiar, I've been hearing Bible stories, reading and discussing Bible passages, and taking courses (some by recognized international scholars) for much of my life. I'm for new insights in these, something I had missed the first (or 10th) time. But what really interested me were those parts of the Bible I seldom read before and a few that I don't remember ever seeing before. Sometimes they puzzled me; sometimes they surprised me; sometimes they challenged me.
Because I wanted to read this as a whole, how it spoke to me with the guidance of the Spirit, I deliberately did not check any scholars or experts. However I found I could not ignore what I had learned before, so sometimes ideas gleaned from books and speakers that had influenced me in the past, continue to be part of my thinking.
Some of what stood out for me:
- it is not a continuous story like a novel or a biography or a history book – it doesn't contain a single overriding theme – it was written by various people, with various agendas, over the centuries – revised and compiled, sometimes many times over.
- Genesis alone is a mishmash from several sources - chapters 1 and two contain two different creation stories, the story of Noah has at least two different sources.
- The writers do not agree and there is conflict. This is especially stood out for me in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Did God want them to be united under one powerful king? Or were they better off as separate tribes with judges to mediate between them? Did having a King mean that 'Egypt has come to Israel' and the common people were enslaved once again, this time under their own rulers? And what about Saul – in many ways he seems to be a better man than David. I've never understood why God rejected him. I know the reason given is that he refused to murder the women and children and all living creatures when when his army was victorious in a battle. Isn't showing mercy a good thing, desired by a loving God?
-
Early in January I made a resolution to read the entire Bible in one year. I completed it in 11 months. Actually a week or so less than 11 months.
Much of it was familiar, I've been hearing Bible stories, reading and discussing Bible passages, and taking courses (some by recognized international scholars) for much of my life. I'm for new insights in these, something I had missed the first (or 10th) time. But what really interested me were those parts of the Bible I seldom read before and a few that I don't remember ever seeing before. Sometimes they puzzled me; sometimes they surprised me; sometimes they challenged me.
Because I wanted to read this as a whole, how it spoke to me with the guidance of the Spirit, I deliberately did not check any scholars or experts. However I found I could not ignore what I had learned before, so sometimes ideas gleaned from books and speakers that had influenced me in the past, continue to be part of my thinking.
Some of what stood out for me:
- it is not a continuous story like a novel or a biography or a history book – it doesn't contain a single overriding theme – it was written by various people, with various agendas, over the centuries – revised and compiled, sometimes many times over.
- Genesis alone is a mishmash from several sources - chapters 1 and two contain two different creation stories, the story of Noah has at least two different sources.
- The writers do not agree and there is conflict. This is especially stood out for me in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Did God want them to be united under one powerful king? Or were they better off as separate tribes with judges to mediate between them? Did having a King mean that 'Egypt has come to Israel' and the common people were enslaved once again, this time under their own rulers? And what about Saul – in many ways he seems to be a better man than David. I've never understood why God rejected him. I know the reason given is that he refused to murder the women and children and all living creatures when when his army was victorious in a battle. Isn't showing mercy a good thing, desired by a loving God?
-
Physically powerful gods don't like Sol/Saul/Soul as a device of thought and process it goes against free desire, will, love and all the collapsing segments ...
Some say wisdom and knowledge are still out there as alien information ... it'll come as defined by the word 'lag' ... when folk are behind in their history and the digging thereof ... tis a dirty job working with old myths and ma nu scripts!
Nu as condensed in de Nous ... Freudian chi'll' doff print ... with smears and unconscious dribbles and drivel ... compared to the balanced Rule ... in his rael life off side as Uri*al part even though some attempt isolationism ... Last Man Rule?
Ther eit collapses under the sheets and pages of the stable folk ... double edged sword in the bairn eh? One should've known B' Eta ... that becoming behind part ... just to get it turned and fa' SET!
Other's Ide to wit? Kings are finkles ... far Kling on nights ... not a twinkle regarding rising Deis Eddys ...
Get a grip as IT pas esse ... read into the darkness of sol ... a deep sol vent as it bubbles up th' Eire as an icon of something decidedly different and unseen as yet ...
We must cross over that odd gap ... schism?
Some say wisdom and knowledge are still out there as alien information ... it'll come as defined by the word 'lag' ... when folk are behind in their history and the digging thereof ... tis a dirty job working with old myths and ma nu scripts!
Nu as condensed in de Nous ... Freudian chi'll' doff print ... with smears and unconscious dribbles and drivel ... compared to the balanced Rule ... in his rael life off side as Uri*al part even though some attempt isolationism ... Last Man Rule?
Ther eit collapses under the sheets and pages of the stable folk ... double edged sword in the bairn eh? One should've known B' Eta ... that becoming behind part ... just to get it turned and fa' SET!
Other's Ide to wit? Kings are finkles ... far Kling on nights ... not a twinkle regarding rising Deis Eddys ...
Get a grip as IT pas esse ... read into the darkness of sol ... a deep sol vent as it bubbles up th' Eire as an icon of something decidedly different and unseen as yet ...
We must cross over that odd gap ... schism?
Seeler
Well-Known Member
- What lot all the bloodshed and killing?
However, the overall impression I received from reading the entire Bible is that it is the story of the people trying to understand their God and their relationship to this God and the world they live in. This understanding changes and develops over time.
It starts with the people living in a beautiful garden, looking up at the sky and wondered how all this happened, who made it, what does it mean, and what is our place in it. And different types of people in different locations over time develop their stories – two of which we have in Genesis. A loving God created the world and all that is in it and it was good. How then did evil enter the world? The stories in Genesis and in Job give us an answer.
And so it continued. We have the collection of stories of one group of people. For the most part they believe that their God was the only God. However in other places the Bible indicates a belief that their God was most powerful over other gods of other tribes and they must be careful not to be attracted to these other gods. 'You must have no other gods before me.' Reads one of their first laws. They developed laws and rituals, including circumcision, to identify themselves who belonged and who didn't.
Many of the battles fought in the bloodshed because these people (called in various places Hebrews, Israelites, Jews) believe it is important to keep themselves separate from others who worshipped idols of other gods. They had a covenant with God "I will be your God and you will be my people if you obey my laws."
Interestingly for the people who considered hemselves chosen and blessed by God their story developed around two periods - slavery in Egypt and exile in Babylon - that did not seem like blessings yet they were incorporated into the history of the people as times when they forgot the covenant.
To be continued.
However, the overall impression I received from reading the entire Bible is that it is the story of the people trying to understand their God and their relationship to this God and the world they live in. This understanding changes and develops over time.
It starts with the people living in a beautiful garden, looking up at the sky and wondered how all this happened, who made it, what does it mean, and what is our place in it. And different types of people in different locations over time develop their stories – two of which we have in Genesis. A loving God created the world and all that is in it and it was good. How then did evil enter the world? The stories in Genesis and in Job give us an answer.
And so it continued. We have the collection of stories of one group of people. For the most part they believe that their God was the only God. However in other places the Bible indicates a belief that their God was most powerful over other gods of other tribes and they must be careful not to be attracted to these other gods. 'You must have no other gods before me.' Reads one of their first laws. They developed laws and rituals, including circumcision, to identify themselves who belonged and who didn't.
Many of the battles fought in the bloodshed because these people (called in various places Hebrews, Israelites, Jews) believe it is important to keep themselves separate from others who worshipped idols of other gods. They had a covenant with God "I will be your God and you will be my people if you obey my laws."
Interestingly for the people who considered hemselves chosen and blessed by God their story developed around two periods - slavery in Egypt and exile in Babylon - that did not seem like blessings yet they were incorporated into the history of the people as times when they forgot the covenant.
To be continued.
And plasma was spelt on the earth ... as the Sun erupts ... casting shadows to those darkened by the process ... of great work of fecundity of that which isn't in essence ... only in out psi Quis ... bouncing double talk off the parietal wall?
Tis part of Game Theory ... read Dan Brown on Origin ... something we just can't accept ... massive screw up in space with fallout ... logical fallacy in onus!
Gof igur ... Goth IHC construct? Tis dark and shady because of what we chose not to know ... especially Oh Shaw'ns 've word! Shawnessy Theo's ... on great healings ... escapism? At best temporal ... from the chic-I-see up there ... could be chickasaw legend ... AN essence ... differs from tote -ism where folk walk off with boot-ease ... costing someone their hide ...
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
My take on the Bible is that it cannot be treated as a "novel". There isn't a single story or plot. It's more like a shared universe anthology. The stories all happen in the same setting, overlap in terms of referring to each other and to common characters and themes, but are very clearly different works by different authors. Some of them aren't even stories. Song of Songs and Psalms are poetry. Ecclesiastes is basically an essay, as are many of Paul's letters.
The main difference from a shared universe is that with shared universes, the authors are contemporaries and can share what they are doing and plot out the background collectively or under the guidance of an editor. The Bible stories cover a long period and the authors of some parts were long dead when other parts were written. Some of them, like Exodus, likely existed for a long time in oral form before they were written down. So we have no idea who actually wrote them down. Thus, each writer could take what they knew of what had gone before and put their own spin on it, creating a much more diverse and divergent shared universe than you'd get from one that was created by authors and editors who knew each other and worked more or less together.
Seeler
Well-Known Member
I enjoyed reading the prophets.
I found conflict between the books of the kings and the writings of the prophets. The kings saw God’s blessing in wealth, power, might – in winning battles, establishing trade, and building a magnificent temple in which to worship. The prophets warned against putting trust in these things. They showed concern for obeying the covenant, caring for the poor and weak, treating everyone with justice and mercy, practising humility. When the Babylonians defeated them destroy their temple and took them into captivity, the prophets taught that God went into captivity with them and was still with them. A remenant would be saved to return home. Their message was one of hope and encouragement. They are beautiful word pictures of God’s realm on earth where everyone had enough. A new leader would come an anointed one, messiah.
I found conflict between the books of the kings and the writings of the prophets. The kings saw God’s blessing in wealth, power, might – in winning battles, establishing trade, and building a magnificent temple in which to worship. The prophets warned against putting trust in these things. They showed concern for obeying the covenant, caring for the poor and weak, treating everyone with justice and mercy, practising humility. When the Babylonians defeated them destroy their temple and took them into captivity, the prophets taught that God went into captivity with them and was still with them. A remenant would be saved to return home. Their message was one of hope and encouragement. They are beautiful word pictures of God’s realm on earth where everyone had enough. A new leader would come an anointed one, messiah.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
A lesson for our times, perhaps? We may elect our kings, but they still tend to look at God that way much of the time. Perhaps moreso in the US than here. And I wonder what it says to the church, which has often supported the kings rather than the prophets.
Tis closer than you imagine given the rubbing ... of the well greased?
Tis a sly and slippery legend .. and melted bacon Vatis ...
Seeler
Well-Known Member
Even though many of the profits spoke of the Messiah, many of the prophets did not agree with each other in their predictions of what the Messiah would be like. Many saw him as a King like David, coming to reestablish a powerful kingdom. Others, like Isaiah and Zechariah, saw him as humble, a suffering servant; 'riding on a donkey'.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two opposing views.
And what about all those books, or parts of books, that have directing or assisting his chosen people to pillage, murder, destroy their neighbours, to practice genocide to the point of having the sun still stands still to lengthen the day and prolong the slaughter. Those passages do not condemn Lot for offering his daughters to be raped by a mob and all those that treat women as property with no rights of their own. It might fit seemed right to remove this passages altogether is not representing the love of God. However, I see value in having them there, if only to remind us that our understanding of God is imperfect, and things can go horribly wrong if we forget the commandment to love God and love our neighbour, to care for the weak, to welcome the alien or foreigner, if we use God to justify our own purposes.
I find it difficult to reconcile the two opposing views.
And what about all those books, or parts of books, that have directing or assisting his chosen people to pillage, murder, destroy their neighbours, to practice genocide to the point of having the sun still stands still to lengthen the day and prolong the slaughter. Those passages do not condemn Lot for offering his daughters to be raped by a mob and all those that treat women as property with no rights of their own. It might fit seemed right to remove this passages altogether is not representing the love of God. However, I see value in having them there, if only to remind us that our understanding of God is imperfect, and things can go horribly wrong if we forget the commandment to love God and love our neighbour, to care for the weak, to welcome the alien or foreigner, if we use God to justify our own purposes.
Last edited:
I was once presented at a Baptist fun Eral ... that there were no conflicts in the bi blickal record!
Be*de*ath of meis ... I almost burst out giggling in an most inappropriate SET NG ... all in the blic of an aye ...
... it past in no time ... nothing to it was what i extracted from what was expounded!Even love is a struggle ... as God bedeviled the Job of that chaos ... book of life?
Much was left in dissonance ... once envisioned as Eris of the entire Maas I Ah ...
Some say Maas Adda ... coiled and ready to snip ... an Iraq Nite ... a spidery for catching aspirations ...
Last edited:
In orthodox Christianity, Christ is both King and suffering servant.
Deus Ide 'd Koin? Common ankh or strain ... when the isolated points get too much physically the other side is stressed to the point of not supporting all of the above ...
Could lead to a crash or other impact ... when HR is eliminated completely for the sack of economies snipping corners ... recess is eliminated ... to no relief! Orthodox schism ...
We appear Toby agap eh bi!
Vasi RIFFS ... odd things in the cosmos ... if we could only see ourselves ... the mire is excessively shadowed ...
Last edited:
Seeler
Well-Known Member
There is also conflict in the New Testament as well. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke I find a really human Jesus. A person who grew in wisdom and stature; who got hungry, tired – who fell asleep in the boat during a storm, a person dependent on others for food and shelter as he travelled about the countryside on foot. A person who could be reasoned with; a person who changed his mind; noticed little things birds and flowers, seeds and children. I see him as a person who was lonely in a crowd, who often felt misunderstood even by his closest friends, and finally suffering alone, abandoned by his followers and seperated from God. I also see him as a person so filled with the love of God that that love spread out to other people even those who questioned him and finally even to those who tortured him. He was a person so filled with the Spirit of God that those closest to him saw that Spirit within him and identified him with the Spirit so that even after he died they became aware of that Spirit among them - nothing even death on the cross could separate them. Christ is alive.
In the Gospel of John I found an entirely different Jesus – a Jesus who knew from the beginning that he was the son of God, the anointed one, Messiah, Christ. He knew what people were thinking, he knew ahead of time what was going to happen; he was God incarnate, in the flesh, but still all-knowing and all-powerful. In other words he and the father were and are One.
There is also conflict in the epistles – so much so that I cannot believe all the letters accredited to Paul were actually written by Paul. I find this particularly in the different view of how people should think about women, children, slaves, and Gentiles. Paul seems very open and accepting. He treats all as equals, brothers and sisters in the Lord. However the early churches gradually changed to accept the status quo – people should be content in the role to which they are born.
In fact it seems that throughout his ministry Paul was followed around and harassed by a group of people who attacked his work and teaching and substituted their own understanding as the only true one. While reading and meditating and posting my thoughts on these passages, I felt I could identify with Paul in that I was followed around and criticized. It took some of the joy I felt reading the scriptures and sharing my meditations. Thanks to all those who encouraged and supported me, who gave their own views without attacking mine, and allowed room for discussion and growth.
All in all I consider achieving my resolution in reading the scriptures all the way through to have been a worthwhile and fulfilling experience.
In the Gospel of John I found an entirely different Jesus – a Jesus who knew from the beginning that he was the son of God, the anointed one, Messiah, Christ. He knew what people were thinking, he knew ahead of time what was going to happen; he was God incarnate, in the flesh, but still all-knowing and all-powerful. In other words he and the father were and are One.
There is also conflict in the epistles – so much so that I cannot believe all the letters accredited to Paul were actually written by Paul. I find this particularly in the different view of how people should think about women, children, slaves, and Gentiles. Paul seems very open and accepting. He treats all as equals, brothers and sisters in the Lord. However the early churches gradually changed to accept the status quo – people should be content in the role to which they are born.
In fact it seems that throughout his ministry Paul was followed around and harassed by a group of people who attacked his work and teaching and substituted their own understanding as the only true one. While reading and meditating and posting my thoughts on these passages, I felt I could identify with Paul in that I was followed around and criticized. It took some of the joy I felt reading the scriptures and sharing my meditations. Thanks to all those who encouraged and supported me, who gave their own views without attacking mine, and allowed room for discussion and growth.
All in all I consider achieving my resolution in reading the scriptures all the way through to have been a worthwhile and fulfilling experience.
Last edited: