literal belief and christianity

[Mr. Peanut]

Proof?

Hi!

Let me grab my time-machine. I am saying there are periods of hundreds of years in the Bible wherein God did not intervene with any supernatural phenomena.

Cheers!

 

[Bishka]

Let me grab my time-machine. I am saying there are periods of hundreds of years in the Bible wherein God did not intervene with any supernatural phenomena.

Just because there was not 'phenomena' does not mean God stopped speaking. God has had Prophets from the beginning of time, does it make sense that He would suddenly stop having them? No.

There are other sources other then the Bible where God intervened, but sense they are not 'canonical', I suppose you won't take them into consideration.

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Just because there was not 'phenomena' does not mean God stopped speaking. God has had Prophets from the beginning of time, does it make sense that He would suddenly stop having them? No.

There are other sources other then the Bible where God intervened, but sense they are not 'canonical', I suppose you won't take them into consideration.

Hi!

Once Jesus revealed the end times to John in Revelation, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass..for the time is at hand, and had revealed to the Apostles, all we need to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, and perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, there was no further need of prophets. Of course I believe the biblical canon to have been directly inspired by the Holy Spirit and Our Lord's complete and final revelation before his return.

Cheers!

 

[Bishka]

Hi!

Once Jesus revealed the end times to John in Revelation, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass..for the time is at hand, and had revealed to the Apostles, all we need to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, and perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, there was no further need of prophets. Of course I believe the biblical canon to have been directly inspired by the Holy Spirit and Our Lord's complete and final revelation before his return.

Cheers!

Doesn't answer the question.

So you believe the various translations, additions and subtractions to the Bible were 'directly inspired' as well?

 

[Mr. Peanut]

Doesn't answer the question.

So you believe the various translations, additions and subtractions to the Bible were 'directly inspired' as well?

It answers to my satisfaction. I do not believe the translations were directly inspired. I do believe the originals were. I believe we have very accurate copies of the originals and some not so accurate. I do believe God was able to preserve his word to us so that we may understand it and be saved and live for him.

Cheers!

 

[sojourner]

No it isn't based on what the church says. What a warped idea. It is based on what Jesus said, and He said it in the Bible.

Wrong. It's based upon the faith of the apostles. Jesus didn't "say it in the Bible," because "the Bible" didn't exist when Jesus was saying stuff. Jesus said it to the apostles. The apostles started churches. The churches eventually wrote stuff down. Sorry.

Have you even read the Bible? What I've said is what the Bible says in proper context. Tell me where I have been "dishonest" and prove it with scripture.

I don't have enough time, and there is not enough space in this forum for me to do that.

If the world hates a message from the Bible, it rings true for any Biblist.

It's not the message from the Bible the world is hating in this particular case. It's the message from the "evangelist" (which is not the "message of the Bible").

Tradition is man's invention; the Bible is God's.

Oh, I hope you're not one of the "the Bible fell out of thesky one day" people.

What the Bible says hasn't. Therefore, that change is of the devil.

But scholarship has changed for the better, creating greater understanding of what the Bible says.
That change is not "of the devil."

This is irrelevant as there is only one confession mentioned in the Bible, and that is a confession of your sins to God. It doesn't matter how you confess, just as long as you confess

That's not what "the Bible says." Peter "confessed" that Jesus was the Messiah. Guess it really is all about how one interprets what one reads...

What I submit is that Christianity went apostate from the teachings of Jesus early in its history, but that God has preserved His word through those who follow it absolutely.

What "you submit" is irrelevant to the majority of the Body of Christ.

 

[madhatter85]

do you really think that there was no cesorship when the early church was first getting organized? do you think they would have left things in the bible openly stating that there was going to be an apostasy? no, i think not because of the evil intent of men's hearts and the want and desire for power and money.

 

[sojourner]

do you really think that there was no cesorship when the early church was first getting organized? do you think they would have left things in the bible openly stating that there was going to be an apostasy? no, i think not because of the evil intent of men's hearts and the want and desire for power and money.

Unfortunately, we can't predicate theological thought upon what "may not appear in the Bible." Consipiracy theory is not synonymous with theology.

 

[madhatter85]

Unfortunately, we can't predicate theological thought upon what "may not appear in the Bible." Consipiracy theory is not synonymous with theology.

only if "they say so" it's a catch 22.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but i don't for one minute believe that they would have left things in-tact had they forseen the downfall of christianity during the dark ages.

Do you believe the Bible is complete? do you think God would rely soely on one book for his great and marvelous work? a book that trodded through the ages that were without the light of Christ?

Why would Amos talk about the words of Christ being stricken from the earth? why would in Revelation, an Angel bring forth a book containing the everlasting gospel to preach to all the earth, why would it be neccisary if the whole word of God was already here?
Amos 8:

11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

Revelation 14:

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am totally turned off by "Revelation" and would not take any of it at face value.

 

[sandandfoam]

I have questions regarding the nature of Christianity, I'm trying to get my head around it and would appreciate some feedback.


1
Can one view the Bible, particularly the new testament as inspired literature from which meaning can be created and be a Christian?

2
Does one have to accept the literal existence of Jesus to be Christian or can one say he exists in the bible and that's enough?

I read this today and it blew me away:- "You will realize that doctrines are inventions of the human mind, as it tries to penetrate the mystery of God. You will realize that Scripture itself is the work of human minds, recording the example and teaching of Jesus. Thus it is not what you believe that matters; it is how you respond with your heart and your actions. It is not believing in Christ that matters; it is becoming like him." (From the fourth century writing of Pelagius quoted by Philip Newell)
That is one of the best things I have ever read, wow.

 

[sojourner]

Do you believe the Bible is complete? do you think God would rely soely on one book for his great and marvelous work? a book that trodded through the ages that were without the light of Christ?

I don't believe "complete/incomplete" is at issue. I believe that the canon is the canon, and that it is a tool for us to use. I don't think God relies solely on one book. I think God relies on us. What ages were without the light of Christ? The Church has been here since Pentecost...

 

[sojourner]

I read this today and it blew me away:- "You will realize that doctrines are inventions of the human mind, as it tries to penetrate the mystery of God. You will realize that Scripture itself is the work of human minds, recording the example and teaching of Jesus. Thus it is not what you believe that matters; it is how you respond with your heart and your actions. It is not believing in Christ that matters; it is becoming like him." (From the fourth century writing of Pelagius quoted by Philip Newell)
That is one of the best things I have ever read, wow.

Frubals!!! (It's very unfortunate for the Body of Christ that Pelagius was branded a heretic.) This quotation is sound doctrine for us.

 

[madhatter85]

I don't believe "complete/incomplete" is at issue. I believe that the canon is the canon, and that it is a tool for us to use. I don't think God relies solely on one book. I think God relies on us. What ages were without the light of Christ? The Church has been here since Pentecost...

How is it not an issue? if it is incomplete then it is not the whole truth, that means the keystone to certain chrsitan orginazations is a faulty one.

so saying that jsut because some guys back in the day decided one day to "close a canon" means that they were infalliable in thier descision?

just because a church has existed for a long time does not mean they have the authority nor the truth.

being closed minded makes for rotten people. like my mother-in-law she straight up told her daughter that "it is better to be exclusive and not change and always have a 'strong will' than to listen to anyone and have an open mind" - this kind of thinking is such a sad way to live.

Thinking for yourself is awesome, that is a concept us LDS and athiests have in common.

 

[sojourner]

How is it not an issue? if it is incomplete then it is not the whole truth, that means the keystone to certain chrsitan orginazations is a faulty one.

so saying that jsut because some guys back in the day decided one day to "close a canon" means that they were infalliable in thier descision?

just because a church has existed for a long time does not mean they have the authority nor the truth.

being closed minded makes for rotten people. like my mother-in-law she straight up told her daughter that "it is better to be exclusive and not change and always have a 'strong will' than to listen to anyone and have an open mind" - this kind of thinking is such a sad way to live.

Thinking for yourself is awesome, that is a concept us LDS and athiests have in common.

It's not an issue because, we don't view the Bible as "the whole truth," as you say. But just because it's not the whole of truth doesn't mean that it's faulty.

I didn't say they were infallible. But at least they created a standard to go by, which is really all the canon is.

No, it doesn't. But because the Church has the benefit of the Holy Spirit, it does have authority and truth. and the Church has had the benefit of the Holy spirit since Pentecost.

You're calling me closed-minded? I think you'd have some problem getting consensus in that opinion here. It's because I do think for myself that I am open-minded.

 

[madhatter85]

It's not an issue because, we don't view the Bible as "the whole truth," as you say. But just because it's not the whole of truth doesn't mean that it's faulty.

If it's not the whole truth, shouldn't you look for the whole truth? how can you base beliefs on something you don;t see as the whole truth?

I didn't say they were infallible. But at least they created a standard to go by, which is really all the canon is.

So in other words, even if they made a mistake you are going to stick by it nomatter what?

No, it doesn't. But because the Church has the benefit of the Holy Spirit, it does have authority and truth. and the Church has had the benefit of the Holy spirit since Pentecost.

Everyone inherently has the Holy Spirit when they are born, or in other word "the light of christ" (ala, John 1:9 "...true Light, which lighteth every man."), as for authority, Peter was never part of the early Catholic church, he did not organize it, Ignatius of Antioch was the one who originally organized it and only "claimed" to be a disciple of Peter, so in fact the Catholic church was not originated with Peter, but with Ignatius of which there is no verifiable evidence that he was indeed a Disciple of Peter, or that he was given the authority of apostleship or the priesthood.

You're calling me closed-minded? I think you'd have some problem getting consensus in that opinion here. It's because I do think for myself that I am open-minded.

but you're relying soley on the bible which you conceded that you know is not the whole truth, and refuse to accept anything other than it because of a canon that was set that you concede may have been falliable. That is not thinking for yourself.

 

[sojourner]

If it's not the whole truth, shouldn't you look for the whole truth? how can you base beliefs on something you don;t see as the whole truth?

I do look for whole truth. I look for truth outside the Bible all the time. I don't, in fact, "base my beliefs on something I don't see as the whole truth." My beliefs are not grounded entirely in Biblical scripture. You're throwing up a red herring here.

So in other words, even if they made a mistake you are going to stick by it nomatter what?

A standard is a standard. Other writings are included in the corpus of "writings that contain truth," even if they're not included in the canon. I use Thomas and the deuterocanonical texts all the time. But they're not part of the canon. For me, the canon is not the place to end, but the place to start.

Everyone inherently has the Holy Spirit when they are born, or in other word "the light of christ" (ala, John 1:9 "...true Light, which lighteth every man."), as for authority, Peter was never part of the early Catholic church, he did not organize it, Ignatius of Antioch was the one who originally organized it and only "claimed" to be a disciple of Peter, so in fact the Catholic church was not originated with Peter, but with Ignatius of which there is no verifiable evidence that he was indeed a Disciple of Peter, or that he was given the authority of apostleship or the priesthood.

You're assuming that I'm speaking of the Roman Catholic Church. I am not. I'm speaking of the historic Church that incorporates the RCC, but other pieces of the puzzle, as well.

but you're relying soley on the bible which you conceded that you know is not the whole truth, and refuse to accept anything other than it because of a canon that was set that you concede may have been falliable. That is not thinking for yourself.

I'm not "relying solely on the Bible." I refuse to accept anything else as canonical scripture. But I "rely" on things outside the canon, too. This certainly is "thinking for myself."

You're basing your argument upon assumptions that are grossly mistaken. Those mistaken assumptions throw your argument out the window. You aren't going to entrap me into making a claim that you can jump on as "closed-minded" or "unthinking." Nor are you going to entrap me into conceding that, only by accepting the BOM as scripture can I possibly be considered to think for myself.

It is entirely possible for one to accept the canon scripture as canon scripture and still think for oneself.

 

[madhatter85]

I do look for whole truth. I look for truth outside the Bible all the time. I don't, in fact, "base my beliefs on something I don't see as the whole truth." My beliefs are not grounded entirely in Biblical scripture. You're throwing up a red herring here.

what other extra-canonical rescources do you base your beliefs on?

A standard is a standard. Other writings are included in the corpus of "writings that contain truth," even if they're not included in the canon. I use Thomas and the deuterocanonical texts all the time. But they're not part of the canon. For me, the canon is not the place to end, but the place to start.

But then this throws your argument out the window that you reject the BoM on the basis that it is not Canon, and that the "canon was closed for a reason"

You're assuming that I'm speaking of the Roman Catholic Church. I am not. I'm speaking of the historic Church that incorporates the RCC, but other pieces of the puzzle, as well.

Doesn't matter if you are OPrthodox Catholic or Roman Catholic, the basis still is the same, they extended from the same body of people. we are talkign about roots, not modern day types of Catholicism.

I'm not "relying solely on the Bible." I refuse to accept anything else as canonical scripture. But I "rely" on things outside the canon, too. This certainly is "thinking for myself."

Then why do you even aknowledge that there is a "Canon" if you go outside of it? what is the purpose of a "Canon" if there is truth to be had elsewhere?

You're basing your argument upon assumptions that are grossly mistaken. Those mistaken assumptions throw your argument out the window. You aren't going to entrap me into making a claim that you can jump on as "closed-minded" or "unthinking." Nor are you going to entrap me into conceding that, only by accepting the BOM as scripture can I possibly be considered to think for myself.

No, my claim is not an argument for the book of Mormon, but more in line with an athiest's claim that peopel don;t think for themselves. And yes, if you blindly follow a "canon" which some people set back in the early days of the church, and you don;t know "why" they set it. and you don;t question "why" then you are indeed not thinking for yourself.

It is entirely possible for one to accept the canon scripture as canon scripture and still think for oneself.

how ,when you conceeded that it was not directed by God to close the Cannon? that is just accepting what some guys did in the early history of your church. Yes it is entirely possible If you ask all the questions and put to rest all reservations, which i can tell you have not put to rest all your reservations as you are still "looking for truth". If your church does not have the whole truth, what is the point of a religion? to give half truiths and make up the rest on a whim?

 

[sojourner]

what other extra-canonical rescources do you base your beliefs on?

Tradition, experience, culture, theological treatises, etc.

But then this throws your argument out the window that you reject the BoM on the basis that it is not Canon, and that the "canon was closed for a reason"

I reject the BOM as scripture, because it's not in the canon, just as I reject anything that's not in the canon as scripture. The BOM may contain truth. As such, it is valid...but not scripture, as far as I'm concerned.

Doesn't matter if you are OPrthodox Catholic or Roman Catholic, the basis still is the same, they extended from the same body of people. we are talkign about roots, not modern day types of Catholicism.

Unfortunately, the post of yours to which this response was directed, was talking about the origins of the RCC, not the ekklesia of the Bible.

Then why do you even aknowledge that there is a "Canon" if you go outside of it? what is the purpose of a "Canon" if there is truth to be had elsewhere?

Because the canon is not the be-all-end-all for me. There is canon scripture, and there are other writings that are valuable for shedding illumination. As I said before, the canon, as a standard, is a place to start...not end.

No, my claim is not an argument for the book of Mormon, but more in line with an athiest's claim that peopel don;t think for themselves. And yes, if you blindly follow a "canon" which some people set back in the early days of the church, and you don;t know "why" they set it. and you don;t question "why" then you are indeed not thinking for yourself

How do you know I haven't studied it, discovered "why" they set it the way they did, and agree that their work was inspired? We study and discover all kinds of things in an accredited graduate seminary.

how ,when you conceeded that it was not directed by God to close the Cannon? that is just accepting what some guys did in the early history of your church. Yes it is entirely possible If you ask all the questions and put to rest all reservations, which i can tell you have not put to rest all your reservations as you are still "looking for truth". If your church does not have the whole truth, what is the point of a religion? to give half truiths and make up the rest on a whim?

I didn't concede that it was not directed by God. I conceded that human beings, working as God's agents, under God's inspiration, set the canon.
Searching, discerning, coming to an understanding, discovering, wallering things around in one's mind and heart -- this is the purpose of religion. If one already has all of the truth and all of the answers, it's at that point that religion means nothing. Religion is not a replacement for God, nor an icon for God. it is an intermediary between God and humanity.

Of course I still search for truth. I shall continue to search for truth as long as I live. I can ill afford the hubris that says, "I have it all." One only deludes one's self by doing that.

"Making things up on a whim" is hardly the modus operendi of a bona fide religion. Finding and giving voice to truth as best one can is a different matter.

God grant me the curiosity to never be satisfied with my faith or beliefs. God grant me the motivation to always continue the journey toward truth.

 

[Bishka]

Tradition, experience, culture, theological treatises, etc.

I reject the BOM as scripture, because it's not in the canon, just as I reject anything that's not in the canon as scripture. The BOM may contain truth. As such, it is valid...but not scripture, as far as I'm concerned.

These two statements of yours makes no sense.