sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
If we're going to say that "all scripture comes straight from the mouth of God," don't we need to define just what "all scripture" consists of?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the bible word perfect? (infaliable? is that the right word?)
- Thread starter Truth_Faith13
- Start date
If we're going to say that "all scripture comes straight from the mouth of God," don't we need to define just what "all scripture" consists of?
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
But myth and fable reveal great truths, do they not?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Yes, they do. But the extent to which they do is inversely proportional to one's ability to perceive them as myths and fables.
I'm not Catholic. I'm not LDS. So that should tell you what I think all scripture consists of. Jesus affirms that the OT is seen in whole as scripture, so that's pretty conclusive as long as you believe the gospels should be taken as scripture. As far as the NT, one of the criteria for selecting what to cannonize was that they couldn't teach any beliefs contrary to established doctrines. As long as the added material is only reinforcing what is already there, that is a good indicator of truth and inspiration. Furthermore, God used the apostles to further his church in the early days, so anything written by them was considered truth. I think the NT as it stands now was put together with good principles in mind and I have no reason to doubt it's validity. Still, I'll be the first to admit that I have not read all (in fact, none in whole) of the hundreds of books that were not selected. I have seen the few books that there was a debate about (gospel of Thomas for example) and some of the verses that disqualified it from being cannonized and I agree 100% from the evidence I've seen.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
No, it doesn't. It could be anything from the Upanishads to MAD magazine.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Professing yourself as a Christian indicates nothing with respect to what you accept as Scripture.
Here's the results of a google search for the definition:
No definitions were found for Christian Scripture.
Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Search the Web for documents that contain " Christian Scripture"
- Search the Web for documents that contain " Christian Scripture"
Truth_Faith13
Well-Known Member
Different christians have different believes, you dont believe most of LDS scripture yet they are christian. What denomination are you? if any?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Ha. That's what I thought, too. Many Christians have different canons, and simply opposing one group presupposes nothing.
If the world revolves around anyone, it must revolve around me. If I don't follow you, you must know exactly what I am.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
What did Jesus consider to be the "OT in whole?" Did it include Maccabees? Sirach? What? Or was Jesus talking about the Pentateuch? If so, what about the extra-Pentateuchal writings? What about the writings that others consider to be scripture? What about other literature that is not scriptural? Can it perfectly reveal God to us? What is it that makes scripture scripture? Who decides? Why does that person or committee have authority to make that decision. Who says? Wd ahve to answer all of these questions before we can proceed. Be careful to consider and include all religious people in your answers.
He was referring to the Hebrew Bible of his day, which as far as I know, is the same Hebrew Bible used today and equivalent to the Christian OT.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Which is the Christian OT? As presented in The Protestant Bible? The Roman Bible? The Orthodox Bible? The Coptic Bible? The Ethiopian Bible?
Did you know that the Hebrew Bible of today is different than the "Christian OT" (whichever one)? Did you know that the Hebrew canon was not decided until after the Christian canon?
I think, before making claims of perfection, we had better decide just what it is that we are making claims of perfection about.
I think it's implicit when I make a distinction that the Christian Bible is that of the Hebrews that I'm referring to the Protestant Bible. Congratulations, you know a lot about the Old Testament, but all of that was more showing off than helpful, I'm afraid.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I think it's a little presumptuous of you to claim that when Jesus made a statement about the scriptures, he was referring to the Protestant Bible of today. I'm not showing off. I'm hoping to hold you accountable for your claims.
It's obvious that he was referring to the Bible that the Jews were using, no? If the Protestant Bible is then the same as the Hebrew Bible, why is that presumptuous? I do not claim to know everything about history. In fact, this is probably my weakest area. I know much more about the New Testament than the old. Nonetheless, I am under the impression that the Hebrew Bible is equivalent to the Protestant OT.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Jesus was doing what? He was REASONING with them, much as Paul was reasoning with the Athenians here:
Acts 17:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you. -NIV
Now surely you aren't suggesting that by quoting this inscription that Paul is validating it. Rather Paul is working from something THEY KNOW, just as Jesus was doing.
"What did Jesus consider to be the "OT in whole?"" That's the question. It's pretty obvious that the authors of the Gospels held beliefs that are nowhere to be found in the OT; demon possesion, the idea of Satan as a free-agent of evil,...
It's just as obvious that at least two of the authors of the epistles considered certain books scripture that were never included in the christian canon; Jude quotes from The Book of Enoch and eludes to a story from the apochraphal The War of the Son's of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, as does Peter.
The first century septuegint contained Tobit, Judith and the Dragon, Hannah and her Sisters, among others.
For anyone to refer to the Bible or the scriptures as if they were something handed directly from God, to the authors, to us--intact and in total-- is just a fanciful, unjustifiable tradition that contradicts the actual evidence.