so there you go....
DaveC
And where does Song of Songs fit in to this theory?
quote:
And where does the song of songs fit in to this theory?
quote:
Cant.7 1.[7] You are stately as a palm tree,
and your breasts are like its clusters.
2.[8] I say I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its branches.
That's obviously 'profitable for teaching' but it's a bit tough on men who don't get attracted to palm trees.
Surely the problem arises when people take the Timothy quote to mean 'the bits in the Bible which I say are to be taken literally are to be taken literally - so there!'
For instance some people insist that six-day creation is to be taken literally and then insist that the Song of Songs is an allegory of Christ's love to his Church and not someone having fun writing enjoyably about er... sex.
It seems to me that quite often people who accuse others of picking and choosing are up to the same thing themselves - picking and choosing what to treat as allegorical and what to treat literally, but not admitting that that is what is going on.
Just my tuppence worth (how many Euros is that?)
Louise
What is your truth of the Bible, Jim?
That the vast majority of non-Anglo-Saxon humanity are going to burn forever.
That's one of your truths.
quote:
All Christians believe in the validity, the truth OF the Bible, by definition.
By definition? I dont think belief in the Bible is the definition of a christian.
Belief in Jesus is the criteria, and even that can be stretched to include many differant beliefs!
And Jim was only opening a debate, no need to jump to massive conclusions about his beliefs Martin!
So what is "scripture"? Is it basically whatever the Church says it is? Or can it be "measured" or "criteriafied"?
in my opinion all scripture is useful, but you also have to interpret scripture consistently.
To take an example close to home at the moment: If you accept that women should not speak in church or have authority over a man because of what Paul says in 1 Tim 2 then you should also insist that they pray with covered heads because of what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11.
Maybe on an aside, I think that if you interpret all scripture as being literal, then you will go nuts at all the contradictions there are there. (but god can allow paradoxes so that's ok?!)
whoops, I was going to try and keep those issues out of my posts for a week or two. Now look what you made me do!!!
if anyone disagrees, i'd like to hear they're views.
dave 8o)
Where did you get your knowledge of Christ from?
What makes you think I'm jumping to any conclusions about Jim?
Why doesn't he refute what I KNOW he believes?
Ask him.
He believes that only those paltry few mainly Anglo-Saxons who proclaim Jesus as their saviour are saved, apart from some arbitrary cut-off of innocence for some children.
He believes that most of humanity were created to burn and not even be evangelized they are so worthless.
Don't you Jim?
Welcome to the Thieme Park
and I now realise I have gone off topic, so I resume everyone to:
"Should we accept that all scripture is to be accepted as truth? "
Discuss!
Where was the personal attack?
I find his use of the word 'distortion' interesting.
How does one distort primitive Calvinism? How does one distort the horrible, bleak, graceless, racist, inadequate 'theology' of most non-Orthodox-Catholic-Anglican-Methodist-Episcopalians?
Starbelly, you get your knowledge of Christ from the Bible and apostolic witness, ultimately. The Word of God. Just as the great Karl Barth did: 'Jesus loves me, this I know, 'cos the Bible tells me so'.
I repeat all Christians, by definition, accept the truth of the Bible.
The question is what do we mean by truth.
bb
only joking )2. I re-state that my knowledge of Christ comes through many sources, some that lead back to the Bible, so which do not. I know about the Mind of Christ through prophecy for today, Seeing Gods Love in others, Extra biblical books of the early church, personal revelation (some people through dreams and visions). I will of course admit the the Bible is the clearest description of Jesus and Gods plan for humanity, but it is concievable for people to be a christian without any knowledge of the Bible (as indeed tribes that have had no missionary influence, have been found to have Christian beliefs).
3. Truth...oh I wish I knew!
Which excludes most of us : )
I like your style.
You'd make a good defence lawyer. I'd like to be a prosecutor or defendant in your court.
Jim and I have previous, on ChurchNetUk, currently the midden of a nauseatingly sanctimonious anti-semite (I'm not frightened of libel, just the paranoia here about it.)
[libelous content deleted again, this is getting tiresome]
My agenda is to engage as dialectically as possible with those whose gospel is graceless (Calvinists) or intellectually inadequate (Charismatics), especially from those who imagine they have grace or intellect, which I merely aspire to.
I want to see the better men and women than I here deal with the filth we have to put up with on ChurchNet. If you won't come out of your cozy ivory tower, we will come to you.
Martin
Looking for grace.
[ 10 June 2001: Message edited by: Erin ]
From: Dr. John S. Weekes (chaberpublishing@aol.com)
In my book Understanding The Doctrine Of The Trinity, I expressed the view, that the holocaust, although immediately carries out by Hitler and his henchmen, was within the permissive will of God and as such the nemesis that overtook a people, imprudent enough and reckless enough to murder their Messiah, King and God, simply becuse he proclaimed love for others too! What do readers think?
I told him what I thought and I QUOTE (so that can't be libellous):
From: You stupid, ignorant, graceless, fascist lunatic. (martin.clarke4@ntlworld.com)
Whatever befalls you, will we judge you as you judge the Jews? You are a disgrace worse than that charlatan David Irving.
And:
My dear friend, I realise that you do not understand what you say. You call me names. I pray that your heart and your mind and your intellect such as you have, may become not only seasoned, but that your hot head will mellow and the love of God will find a place in your heart and your life. I have replied more fully elsewhere. I have been accused of not replying promptly. But my experience and training teach me to allow cooling time, especially when dealing with troubled minds, minds that are easily impassioned. Looking at your words, and listening to your heart, I perceive that you are made of the very stuff that hilter and his kind are made of. Do not be so angry, my friend. You do not know it; but I know you have misjudged me. The heavenly Father knows you have misjudged me. For your information, I can say in a sense that King George III only imagined, "I glory in the name of Brittain," and of course my Father, who art in heaven. I served at RAF Tangmere where the battle of Brittain started. As a former lecturer in constitutional law, I am a Royalist/Conservative. I grimaced when I learnt that the Hereditary Peerage system was abolished. I pray and hope that the Monarchy, despite its troubles, will not be meddled with. Do you still think that I am more of a fascist than you are? God bless, peace and love my angry friends. I am sorry if I dissapoint you by not lashing back at you with angry words. Beleive me, I used to be very good at hurling insults. ome of my friends used to think I was a master. But now I know only peace, love, long-suffering and charity.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not:
Other people's truth, endorsed by the likes of Jim - how on EARTH does one deal with this?
Smile, nod and ignore?
Perhaps more helpfully:
In response to "Do you still think that I am more of a fascist than you are?" you could point out that if the jews hadn't killed jesus we wouldn't have any christian faith today. Therefore God is not likely to be mad at them!!
dave 8o)
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not:
(I'm not frightened of libel, just the paranoia here about it.)(OOOH! LIBEL ALERT
I would like to remind you that
libel is included within the Ship's 10 Commandments (no. 7). One person has already departed because he could not keep these commandments.
bb
We should take very seriously the fact that it is not univocal.
It has many different strands - cp. Gen 1 with Gen 2-3; the variety of voices in the psalms; the difference in understanding of God between, say, the Torah and the prophets; the variety of voices in the NT). We have to accept these differences exist and also that the editors/compilers/canonisers of these texts had no problem with these inner tensions, so why should we try to impose an outward uniformity?
And we must also avoid making one part of the Bible the touchstone for the rest. For example, conservative Reformed theology reads the bible through the tradition it has built upon Luther and Calvin's thought - both of whom used Paul as there main entry into the biblical text. So, whilst it may internally be very consistnet (can one have degrees consistency? Never mind), this "Evangelical" claims to be faithful to the Bible is in itself untrue as it does not do justice to the whole Bible, only those parts that are sympathetic to and bolster particular theologies.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not:
Jim and I have previous, on ChurchNetUk, currently the midden of a nauseatingly sanctimonious anti-semite (I'm not frightened of libel, just the paranoia here about it.)
How very very brave of you to not be concerned about libel, considering that it is not your career/website/money/ass on the line. For us, however, it is. If you're in such a dire need to post this stuff on the Internet, my suggestion is you shell out some money for a site of your own and post it there.
In your posts you have broken Commandment 7, by continuing to post what you knew was libel, and Commandment 6, by ignoring Simon's rulings, and ultimately Commandment 1, because in ignoring Commandments 6 and 7, you're being a jerk in the process. Plus I'm thinking that you're in violation of Commandment 8, because you've got quite the little crusade going against a few individuals and organizations.
First warning -- you may get a second, you won't get a third. Either conform to the 10Cs, or you're gone.
We can generate all the quarrels we require. In fact, we can generate considerably more than we require.
Moo
Moo
I think it is intresting to note different strands with in the Bible; Paul saying women being silent. We have Phoebec (in Romans) the first woman Deacon and the daughters of Philip being prophets. so we have tension between women not be allowed to have authority and women having authority.
Which is true?
Erin
My apologies for in any way threatening your livelihood or well being.
I hadn't the faintest idea that I could be.
I had no idea the situation was so delicate.
Furthermore I hadn't any idea that my comments were being edited, nothing was said directly to me. I've been intemperate.
Forgive me.
I'm sorry to have caused you to be so draconian. It saddens me in ways you can't imagine.
quote:
Originally posted by Will:
All scripture is Truth. Not all of it is literal Truth.
Are you saying that it's all true, but sometimes when it says "a double headed eagle" it is an analogy, and other times it means a bird with two heads?
If so I agree. The problems come when we try to decide what's literal and what isn't. That can be as difficult as deciding what's true or not.
I guess if I wanted to I could counter any passage which challenged my lifestyle/thinking/attitudes with "Ah, but that's not meant to be taken literally"... But more often I just have to say "I dunno."
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Will.. I am disappointed that I find it necessary to defend myself.I promise you that I am not antijewish.FAR FAR from it!! I am very pro Israel.Satan is antijewish,and many of those he controls.My Pastor has declared if anyone in his Church wishs to be antisemitic that they should leave!!!!!!!
I accept the promise given to Abraham,that those who bless you I will bless,and those who curse you I will curse.
I love the word of God and am grateful to the JEWISH writers used by God to give his truth to all.
I believe that salvation is faith alone in Christ alone.This does not make me a hater of Israel.Indeed I have several fine friends who are Jewish.
All the best Jim
My sincerest apologies then, Jim. Maybe I am carrying some baggage from other encounters, also. I apologize to everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Will.. I am disappointed that I find it necessary to defend myself.I promise you that I am not antijewish.FAR FAR from it!! I am very pro Israel.Satan is antijewish,and many of those he controls.My Pastor has declared if anyone in his Church wishs to be antisemitic that they should leave!!!!!!!
I accept the promise given to Abraham,that those who bless you I will bless,and those who curse you I will curse.
I love the word of God and am grateful to the JEWISH writers used by God to give his truth to all.
I believe that salvation is faith alone in Christ alone.This does not make me a hater of Israel.Indeed I have several fine friends who are Jewish.
All the best Jim
Jim,
I can see you're grateful that God used His people of Ancient Israel to pass along His words of truth and you're also grateful that they begatted the Jewish-born Jesus.
But I'm wondering if you believe that our Jewish friend Will and his fellow-Israelites will suffer an eternity of torment unless he and they profess Jesus as their Saviour before they go to their graves?
Just an honest question waiting for an honest answer.
Mouse
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
Surely many - if not most Christians see no reason why Jews today should be "saved" without some kind of faith in Jesus - Surely this belief does not put them all in "cult" territory, as Jim has seemed to be accused of?
I understand that this is a major belief for many Christians. I didn't imply it was "cult territory" in my reply here.
I was specifically asking for Jim's response on the statements he made to Will.
And I'm still waiting.
Mouse
I spent most of my life in a 'Christian cult' that my parents joined when I was a kid. It hurt like hell when God delivered me and thousands of others out of that. Its hard to realise that you've been duped and stuffed into someone else's belief-universe. Its been a hard struggle coming out of that. I hate psychological abuse, especially if it comes packaged as religion. I'm struggling to learn how to think for myself instead of with someone else's programmed thoughts. Sorry if I came back to your reply a bit too strongly.
Mouse
quote:
Originally posted by starbelly:
Surely many - if not most Christians see no reason why Jews today should be "saved" without some kind of faith in Jesus - Surely this belief does not put them all in "cult" territory, as Jim has seemed to be accused of?
But if we follow this arguement through then we suggest that God will take the whole of the Jewish race and condemn them to some sort of eternal punishment. This is only a step away from justifying the holocaust. This we surely cannot and must not accept from the loving God we claim as our own.
quote:
. I'm struggling to learn how to think for myself instead of with someone else's programmed thoughts. Sorry if I came back to your reply a bit too strongly.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
To me the issue of salvation is very simple,Christ died as a substitute for all the world so all of the world can be saved. He is the only way of salvation,he was the saviour of Abraham,Moses,David,Adam&Eve.
John3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,that whoever believes in him should not perish,but have eternal life.
17. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world,but that the world should be saved through him.
18.He who believes is not judged;he who does not believe has been judged already,because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
I accept that Christ has always been the way of salvation for all of humanity,and that color,or race is no issue.
So you believe that Abraham, Moses, et al. "believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"?
Also, Jim, what is your take on Jews today, who do not regard Jesus as the Son of God?
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Mouse...To me the issue of salvation is very simple,Christ died as a substitute for all the world so all of the world can be saved. He is the only way of salvation,he was the saviour of Abraham,Moses,David,Adam&Eve.
John3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,that whoever believes in him should not perish,but have eternal life.
17. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world,but that the world should be saved through him.
18.He who believes is not judged;he who does not believe has been judged already,because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
I accept that Christ has always been the way of salvation for all of humanity,and that color,or race is no issue.
All the best Jim.
Jim, do you know that 'judgment' is not the same thing as 'damnation'?
I wouldn't want to confuse the two.
You quoted John 3.17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world,but that the world should be saved through him.
But John 5:22 says, For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.
And John 9:39 says, And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
Clearly Jesus did come here to judge the world, Jim.
You also quoted John 3.18, He who believes is not judged;he who does not believe has been judged already,because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
But God wrote through Peter in 1Peter 4:17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
I'm sure you would agree that Peter was a believer and that he taught that God is judging believers, wouldn't you?
If someone wanted to substitute the word 'damnation' for 'judgment' I suppose they could do that. It wouldn't be true to scripture, of course. Hopefully your qualified, original-languages Bible teacher doesn't substitute the word 'damnation' for 'judgment'.
By the way, Jim, just how simple is it for people to believe in Jesus Christ if they've never heard of Him in their lives?
Mouse
For instance does 'Vanity vanity, all is vanity' have the same level of Truth as 'God is Love'?
Jim How do you define the Word Truth?
Different people have different types of truth. In modern Western society scientific ideas predominate, so truth has to be demonstrable by experiment, with a culture of wighing, measuring, counting, timekeeping etc. This has not always been the case.
Those who claim that the bible is true should bear the burden of explaining what they mean by truth and how it can be aplied to the different literary forms within the bible. This is not easy.
Pt
P.S. Timothy probably meant the Hebvrew Scriptures. The NT was not yet collected and published nor regarded as scriptural.
The real question perhaps is "what can we know of the truth?"
quote:
Truth is Truth, it is what is.
and what do you mean? What is what is?
what is in my imagination what I can see
I am fully aware that asking people to define truth is almost next to impossible along with asking what is scripture and why is this scripture.
but before we can grapple the question we must know what is meant by the word Truth or else there can never been a conclusion. since each one of us will assume something different when we say the word truth.
Do we believe that there are different levels of truth in the bible like the Song of songs is more important than Timothy?
so if the writers wrote truth in the oringinal languages.
Then we have the writer of Ecclesiastes saying all is vanity, god commanding the destruction of whole cities and the song of songs saying polgamy is OK as long as you love a lot.
The devil pops down to annoy Job and god lets the devil kill his family
When you say truth do you mean this is what happened or what we should do or what?...
I believe the fact god is truth is a different order (I think 
) to the point that scripture can be accepted as truth
It is possible that you are saying that if God is 100% truth (what ever that means) then scripture must be less than 100% truth in which case that is very intresting proposal...
I await more thoughts
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Nightlamp..Yes the inspired word of God is 100% truth..
That's right.
Truth is what is in accord with the actual state of affairs (Dictionary definition). Another definition is that truth is the form of good, or what leads to good.
Maybe Scripture comes more under the second definition. Much of it, to my mind, is too obviously symbolic to be literally true. If Cain, Adam, and Eve were the only people on earth, why was he worried what people would do to him. And who did he marry?
But all Scripture is written by God for the purpose of our salvation. It can still do that in the parts where it is symbolically written. It's general message is true, clear, and unambiguous - all the law and the prophets hang on the two great commandments.
Personally, except for the first few stories in Genesis, I think that it all happened literally as stated, miracles and all.
I would ask Jim (or any fundamental Christian) if there is only one "plan" in G-d's arsenal? Is there not a possibility of a different "plan" for Jews?
I know your NT scripture. You believe Jesus came for the Jews, was rejected, and his word went to the gentiles and converted Jews.
Since the church was formed, it has split into many doctrinally different denominations so I suppose those scriptures about judgement are fairly subjective as are many others.
Now I know one - I do not have an NT handy - where Jesus said he came not do away with the law but to fulfill it. Now many Christians still take this to mean he did away with the law, hence the Jewish form of worship. Clear reading , however, says he did not.
I propose something for thought:
G-d has answered prayers in my life many times.
G-d has healed a cousin of mine of something medicine could not - through prayer.
I am sometimes "filled" with the presence of G-d while in prayer.
Why should I have any doubt of my salvation if G-d is interacting with me on a personal level?
One more note:
G-d said more than once in the OT that He was tired of our burnt offerings and the smell of our incense. Right there would tell any clear-thinking Jew He was tired of law being put ahead of relationship. Jesus just said it differently.
That is it. 
p.s. Please do not give me any crap about I am really praying to satan and he is the one who is doing all that. This would really 
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
All who believe in Christ are saved,all who do not believe are not saved,this includes all of humanity whatever race they are,and whatever location they situated.
So I still don't know where you stand on Abraham, et al. Abraham obviously could not have believed in Christ. Nor could Noah. Nor could Ruth. Nor could the Canaanites.
Will: I hope you don't think all Christians believe that stuff about Jews. I and countless others believe that the Jews will always be God's chosen people -- God keeps his promises, after all.
The best form of biblical fundamentalism consists of the systematic public reading of scripture without comment, and without trying to tell people in human language how to understand it or how to apply it.
I once took part in an ecumenical event in which the whole of the bible was read out aloud in a public place (C of E church) by members of the participating churches on a rota basis. hat could be more biblically fundamental ... and yet more harmless.
Pt
I believe that some parts of the bible are more inspired than others
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
All who believe in Christ are saved,all who do not believe are not saved,this includes all of humanity whatever race they are,and whatever location they situated.There has never been a way of salvation for humanity except through the work of the cross,the sinless perfect humanity of Christ was judged for the sins of the whole world,he died a substitute for all.
I will not name one Nation or group of people that this applies to,because it applies to all of humanity.
What are the implications/consequences of not being saved for the person/people concerned Jim?
quote:
Originally posted by Another Swedenborgian:
Personally, except for the first few stories in Genesis, I think that it all happened literally as stated, miracles and all.
I'm curious.
Why just the first few stories in Genesis? On what grounds do you decide that these are not "literal" and that everything else is? It seems to me to be far more consistent to be 100% literalist, than to pick and choose which bits you think are literal. Once you admit that Genesis 1 isn't "literal", you have to open the door to every other part of the Bible.
So, where does this leave Job? Is this a "literal" story?
What about Jonah? Did this "literally" happen?
quote:
Originally posted by Groucho:
I'm curious.Why just the first few stories in Genesis? On what grounds do you decide that these are not "literal" and that everything else is? It seems to me to be far more consistent to be 100% literalist, than to pick and choose which bits you think are literal. Once you admit that Genesis 1 isn't "literal", you have to open the door to every other part of the Bible.
So, where does this leave Job? Is this a "literal" story?
What about Jonah? Did this "literally" happen?
Just an answer from this non-literalist:
Job - no
Jonah - probably not
Question back - does it matter?
For example saying to the one you love
"you are beautiful like a red rose"
maybe true to the beholder but the person being talked about does not resemble a plant.
Or for those who believe that a day must be 24 hours long - have you ever used the phrase
"the sun shone all day"
meaning from dawn to dusk not for all 24 hours.
Astro
(who should become a shipmate)
quote:
Quoted by Nightlamp:
We still have not decided what truth would mean for this thread.
Sorry to jump back a bit. Whether we take a literal or non-literal view, the following may perhaps apply to both:
Phil 2:13 "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure."
As for the TRUTH?:
1 Truthfulness Relies Upon Total Honesty?
Let's hope the writers in truth knew what they were writing about. Personally, I have no problems whatsoever in taking a literal Genesis view, but I'm open to see the other viewpoint. Having read various commentaries on Genesis, in addition there are a lot of other publications giving historical credence to the lineage of Noah as shown in Genesis 10, which I find more fascinating than delving into the mysteries behind whether the world was created in 7 days, or not as the case may be.
2. Another aspect of the TRUTH?:
Truth Remains Unchanged Throughout History.
Doubting Thomas did not believe despite being there having, "seen it, done it, worn the T-shirt," so to speak. What chance have we except by FAITH?:
Feelings Are Ignored Truth Hallowed?
May the search for the truth continue.
-Pasco
Since most are still talking about truth - literal, or not - as it pertains to scripture, I suppose I will throw my two cents in.
I believe scripture should be assessed and critiqued as you would any literary source. If these rules are applied consistently, the scriptures are found to be in every range literarturily. Some parts are literal, others allegorical, others poetic, etc.
I think you minimize G-d by using scripture as scientific treatise. Scripture is not a science book, though it contains scientific principles, i.e. Job and hydrological cycle.
It is not a medical book, though it contains sound medical principles, i.e. Moses and quarantine.
IMHO, it is a book of faith. Truth is a false human perception. G-d is truth.
quote:
Originally posted by Groucho:
I'm curious.
Why just the first few stories in Genesis? On what grounds do you decide that these are not "literal" and that everything else is? It seems to me to be far more consistent to be 100% literalist, than to pick and choose which bits you think are literal.
Good question. My answer is that the stories in the first part of Genesis are exceedingly ancient ones that are repeated in various versions throughout the world. But once you start into the Abraham narrative it is the history of a specific people, a narrative that is unquestionably at least partly based on fact. I would argue that it is completely factual, depending on your definition of historical truth (i.e. exact wording of conversations, exact numbers, etc.). And yes to Jonah, but no to Job - because I think Job obviously presents itself as an apocryphal tale.
As for picking and choosing, I just think that this is a logical conclusion from the evidence of the text. But as far as truth goes, it is ALL written by God and contains the truth that every person needs to be saved. It is just that ancient cultures presented truth using symbolism that needs to be interpreted. The truths themselves, however, are always the same - love God,love your neighbor, turn away from evil, etc.
quote:. Where does the Bible say this? Just because He is described as the "First and Last, Alpha and Omega", does that mean He knows everything?
"omnipotent, omniscient and just God"
We can take some of the psalms as poetic hyperbole, and maybe the passages in Jeremiah as the same, or plain exaggeration (interesting aside: if God does know us before we are born, then where are we? In God's presence? If so, why would he then remove us from there to send us to be born into a sinful world? If we are pre-existrent outside God's presence then does that mjean we are in hell?)
Anyway, Jim Powell, don't take all the rubbish that gets flung at you personally.
quote:
quote:
After his death, this guy’s followers became aware that he was, amazingly, still around, and they began to try and make sense of all they’d seen and heard from him, both before and after his death. They began to realise that this guy knew so much about God that he must have had a pretty special kind of relationship with God – unique, even. In a way, they thought – and they may well have been right – in a way, he was God.
Over the course of the years, they came up with a whole range of beliefs which explained how unique this guy was. But, while they were doing all this, they tended to concentrate less on what he had actually said about the business of doing religion. The result was that they came to develop a hierarchy of just the kind he had criticised in the past. They made money out of this new faith, they displayed their wealth and their holiness publicly, and they made the mistake of thinking that what they believed to be true about the preacher, was as important as anything the preacher himself had said. And, even though their beliefs may have been right, this was where, IMHO, they went wrong. Because the preacher never said that people had to believe how amazing he was, he just said that he stood at the gateway to heaven and could get people in. And who did he say would get in? The people who did stuff to help other people. He promised to treat those people as if they had done that stuff for him and what’s more, he said that that was all that counted when it came to getting into heaven – and not whether or not people called him ‘Lord’, which the religious folk liked to do. Did that suit the religious folk? Hell, no – they would rather believe a load of **** about people who have never heard of this guy burning in a lake of fire for all eternity. Speaking personally, where the preacher and his followers differ, I would rather go with the preacher.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
RuthW,Yes Indeed Abraham believed in the Lord,and righteousness was credited to his account,as it is for all who believe in Christ.
Explain.
quote:
The temple taught truth about The Lord Jesus Christ,and the way of salvation,..
Explain.
quote:
the ritual taught the work of the cross,the people looked forward to the cross as a sure event that would provide salvation,we look back.
Explain.
quote:
The Lord told Adam and Eve after the fall he was going to the cross for them,and they believed and are in Heaven today.
Explain.
Just saying things doesn't make them true. That last quoted bit appears to have been made up out of whole cloth.
Please explain why it hasn't.
Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally
by Marcus J. Borg, now an Episcopalian who grew up conservative Lutheran who is the Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University. He's also written"Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time," "The God We Never Knew," and "Jesus: A New Vision."
quote:
Originally posted by David:
.
Just saying things doesn't make them true. That last quoted bit appears to have been made up out of whole cloth.
I agree. But I think he is referring to God's words to the serpent "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel" Genesis 3.15.
This amounts to a promise that a Son would come who would "bruise" the head of evil. But nothing about Adam and Eve's salvation.
Same with the words about Abraham's belief. Genesis 15.6: "And Abraham believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness." It is a simple statement of Abraham's confidence in Jehovah, but Christians have traditionally interpreted it as a confirmation of salvation by faith.
Personally, I find the concept of salvation by faith, and the accompanying vicarious atonement, to have exceedingly weak scriptural roots. A much more common and satisfying teaching is that "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of My Father(Matthew 7:21).
quote:
Personally, I find the concept of salvation by faith, and the accompanying vicarious atonement, to have exceedingly weak scriptural roots. A much more common and satisfying teaching is that "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of My Father
Although you have raised a good point that there seems to be aspects of the bible that run against the salvation by faith theology. salvation by faith (or by being a disciple) seems to infuse the bible with out it the Cross is almost impossible to explain as is much of Pauls writings.
The problem with reading doctrine straight out of the Bible, especially NT doctrine from the OT, is that if you'd have asked the writer of that bit of Genesis what "salvation by faith" meant, he would have looked blank. Does that mean it wasn't there? I once saw an anti-apartheid version of Othello. Shakepeare wouldn't have known apartheid if it came up and bit his ankle. Does that mean it isn't possible to read Shakespeare like that? The production was very good.
One thing I do wonder about, though, and that is whether we're sometimes guilty of reading a lot more out of a passage than is necessary. Like that 2 Timothy passage: all it's saying is that scripture is profitable. It's not saying that's always right, inerrant, a great fount of unassailable truth; it's saying it is profitable. I think sometimes we read rather more into things than we need to sometimes, probably because it confirms what we already think.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
David, Galations3:6 refers to Abraham and imputed righteousness.
quote:
Genesis3:15 refers to the cross,and 21 to salvation.
quote:
The curtain of the Temple stood for Christ,and was before the Holy of Holies,which stood for Heaven,which was torn after the work of the cross was complete..
Alan
I don't see it myself.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Alan the barrier between God and man is now removed by the cross.And our access to Heaven(holy of holies)is through Christ
I agree fully with that.
Just don't see how the curtain stands for Christ; that was what left me confused.
Alan
quote:
The temple taught truth about The Lord Jesus Christ,and the way of salvation,.. the ritual taught the work of the cross,the people looked forward to the cross as a sure event that would provide salvation,we look back.
The temple? In Jerusalem? Before Jesus was even born on this earth? Evidence for this, please?
The idea that an abused people would look forward to the cross is ludicrous to me. We can read the Song of the Suffering Servant backwards through Christ, and see him there, but I don't think Jews at any point in their history looked forward to a leader who would die a miserable and humiliating death.
quote:
Genesis3:15 refers to the cross,and 21 to salvation.
quote:
...but I don't think Jews at any point in their history looked forward to a leader who would die a miserable and humiliating death.
Exactly! In fact most Jews thought that Christ would be a mighty ruler and save Israel through strong leadership. Thats why Jesus was not identified as the Christ as quicky as he could have been!
you said
quote:
Animal sacfrice was used in the past to teach the work of the cross,
My apologies but I do not finds the word sacrifice in verse 21. Sacrifice is about something that people make to God but God is doing the action here.
What version of the bible are you using?
quote:
the skins that the Lord used to clothe Adam&Eve came from an animal which died of course.
This statement is naturally true but completely unrelated to the above one and unrelated to the death of Jesus.
It appears that you believe that Scripture is true as long as it is the interpretation you give it, not what the text says. 
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
Another Swedenborgian said
Although you have raised a good point that there seems to be aspects of the bible that run against the salvation by faith theology. salvation by faith (or by being a disciple) seems to infuse the bible with out it the Cross is almost impossible to explain as is much of Pauls writings.
A much more universal theme of the Bible is the contest between good and evil. It is evident in virtually every verse. I think that fitting the cross into that theme, as a final conquest over the power of hell, is a more satisfying explanation than other alternatives.
The image of the angry Father being somehow satisfied by the death of His Son is just too hard to take. What kind of God is that?
I admit that it is a little tricky seeing a death as a victory, and that there are one or two Gospel references to "ransom" and "sacrifice" to explain. But I find this easier to accept than the negation of numerous quotes from Jesus Himself linking salvation with loving God and keeping His commandments.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
the sacrifice is in Genesis chap 3 verse 15(and you shall bruise him on the heel)The cross.
There is no reference to a sacrifice in this verse. Anywhere.
the slaughtered lamb depicted the death of Christ on the cross.
Yee-eees, but, er, what's that to do with any reading of Genesis 3? We're talking about a snake.
So I understand that verse 21 also speaks of the work of the cross, This verse reads: Unto Adam also and to his wife the LORD God made coats of skins, and clothed them (AV)
Now forgive me for being a pedantic lawyer, but
quote:
Do you agree that for the people of Israel the slaughtered lamb depicted the death of Christ on the cross.
I just re-read that and it almost makes sense! mabye someone else can put it into clearer words!
quote:
So I understand that verse 21 also speaks of the work of the cross,
In no way does the passage say so it is simply an interpretation. for this passage to say this it truth it needs an interpretation to be put on it.
Would you agree that the passage does not use the words Jesus, sacrifice, and Cain was did not even alive.
In my simple understanding of the passage god gave them the garments because he cared for his people and it was cold
Jim said
quote:
Do you agree that for the people of Israel the slaughtered lamb depicted the death of Christ on the cross.
Jim I coming to the conclusion you actually are argueing
That we should not accept scripture as truth but only as a stepping stone to the truth. (we still don't no what truth is and Jim appears even more confused than me )
quote:
A much more common and satisfying teaching is that "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that does the will of My Father(Matthew 7:21)
I do not disagree that there is a tension between works and faith in the Bible. The Prophets and Paul struggles with this but the balance falls on the side of faith.
I can understand that you have problems with a certain theology of the cross but still faith is the key.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Do you agree that for the people of Israel the slaughtered lamb depicted the death of Christ on the cross.
As a Christian I believe the animal sacrifices of the OT depict the sacrifice of Christ, and help to explain what was happening on the Cross. The people of Israel had no such idea.
The Hebrews passage you quoted says that Christ is the way through the curtain, not the curtain itself
Alan
It is Abram's trust in God's word (to him directly, and not in scripture) that made him a righteous man. From Abram's relationship with God we learn that a personal walk with and trust in God as he reveals himself to us is the essence of righteousness.
Which brings me to the nature of truth. We use a logical model to define truth. Truth is to do initially with verifiable facts and then applied to God. "Are the facts he gives us true?".
Biblically, truth has to do with trustworthiness. The concept entered our language when we say someone is true. i.e. trustworthy, consistent and faithful. We can say that God is true and Jesus is the truth in the sense that they are committed to us and we can trust them. God's word is true, and his name is Jesus.
Christian faith is also related to this. Faith is faithfullness to God and trust in his faithfullness to us. It has almost nothing to do with believing a set of statements about God conceptually.
quote:
Christian faith is also related to this. Faith is faithfullness to God and trust in his faithfullness to us. It has almost nothing to do with believing a set of statements about God conceptually.
I've just been lurking on this thread observing the debate, but I wanted to say very well put, Stowaway.
Louise
When I need to "do a study" of this material, be assured that you will be the first person I contact.
Keep watching for Hell to freeze over.
In the meantime, how about you look at others' criticism of what you have written. Read them, think about them, and try to interact with them.
That is what "debate" is. All you're doing here is uncritically regurgitating some fringe theology based on poor translation, overstated scriptural univocity and an exclusionary soteriology, coupled with unsupported proof-texting and highly dubious typology.
I can't speak for anyone else, but nothing you have to say is in any way educational - but on the other hand, you won't learn from anyone else here. So I'm wondering what it is you're trying to achieve.
quote:
Biblically, truth has to do with trustworthiness. The concept entered our language when we say someone is true. i.e. trustworthy, consistent and faithful. We can say that God is true and Jesus is the truth in the sense that they are committed to us and we can trust them
This concept is Truth as revelation god has revealed himself as truth, is this Barth?
God is truth because he has revealed himself as trustworthy.
It's one weakness is that it starts from a faith perspective and this approach to truth is not open to those outside the faith but we do need a concept of truth to engage with the question and this seems to the best on offer. (well I can't think of anything else)
The next stage is to say that we know this God through his word the Bible which was written by Human beings.
God is truth and this is expressed by Jesus the Bible is not God or Jesus and it is fallible. so we can say the Bible contains the Truth ie it reveals God and his Son.
The Bible reveals the Truth
would seem to be something we could all agree on naturally what this means is a mystery Now it is late I must sleep and I am rambling
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
This is just a place for discussion where people freely air their beliefs I suppose,and leave with the same ideas they came with most of the time.
Wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by SteveWal:
Just thought I'd put my tuppenth in...The problem with reading doctrine straight out of the Bible, especially NT doctrine from the OT, is that if you'd have asked the writer of that bit of Genesis what "salvation by faith" meant, he would have looked blank. Does that mean it wasn't there? I once saw an anti-apartheid version of Othello. Shakepeare wouldn't have known apartheid if it came up and bit his ankle. Does that mean it isn't possible to read Shakespeare like that? The production was very good.
One thing I do wonder about, though, and that is whether we're sometimes guilty of reading a lot more out of a passage than is necessary. Like that 2 Timothy passage: all it's saying is that scripture is profitable. It's not saying that's always right, inerrant, a great fount of unassailable truth; it's saying it is profitable. I think sometimes we read rather more into things than we need to sometimes, probably because it confirms what we already think.
I couldn't put it much better myself, Steve. One of the greatest ways to misread the Bible is to read it all literally and as if it were all fact. But that's imposing on the text the standards of the 21st century. If we will just read it historically and metaphorically, we'll learn a whole lot more.
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
This is just a place for discussion where people freely air their beliefs I suppose,and leave with the same ideas they came with most of the time.
I'll second David -- this is simply not the case.
I have learned a lot from shipmates whose ideas are quite different from mine. I've modified my views on some things and realized I was totally off base on others.
This debate about "literalism" etc. is very relevant for me currently. My girlfriend of the last year or so is a literalist Christian whilst I am Church of England (currently) and originally about as opposite as is possible. I am now nowhere near literalist, but have had to give the topic a lot of thought.
Literalism can lead to bad theology. The Bible, in literalist hands, has too often been used as a weapon, both defensively, to prove that people’s personal opinions and prejudices are actually God’s, and as an offensive weapon to deny the opinions and experiences of other people who do not share the same interpretation of ‘God’s Word’. Thus within ‘literalist’ movements there is constant splitting and re-splitting of groups as people begin to question each others’ interpretations of ‘The Word’. This acrimony divides families and communities. I am personally aware of people whose families have disowned them because they decided that in conscience they could no longer continue affiliation with one particular literalist group. The central command of Jesus to ‘love one another as I have loved you’ is lost to the great god ‘Truth’ (as though we could, any of us, know all the truth), which, in reality, masks the old human temptation to be seen to be correct. Yuk.
So it all comes down to love above human wisdom.
We are all human and thus infallible.
Literalist churches attack Roman Catholics (and others) for the emphasis on the authority of the church. But surely in a literalist movement the church has equal authority - the fact that scripture can be interpreted in so many different way surely means that the Church will have to provide its own interpretation which can't be infallibe...can it? Just look at 1 Corinthians for a bit of warning about human "wisdom".
Sorry about the essay - I've just got into the habit with all those exams.
SAM
PS. Isn't Christ the "Word" (logos - see John's Prologue)?
I meant "We are all human and thus
fallible" not infallible! Freudian slip.
Yes...the whole thing was bit garbled.
Oh well, hope someone gets what I'm on about.
quote:
by a new and living way which he inaugurated for us through the veil,that is, his flesh.
I agree with Alan. But there's an easy way to tell. I imagine the Greek gender and case system would clearly show whether it is the veil or the living way which is 'his flesh' - if it's like Latin (which it probably is) then the relative pronoun will inflect to agree with the antecedent.
Any Greek scholars out there?
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
God is truth and this is expressed by Jesus the Bible is not God or Jesus and it is fallible. so we can say the Bible contains the Truth ie it reveals God and his Son.
Yes, the purpose of my post was to point out the meanings of "truth" in it's original context so that we can read the verses and understand them correctly. That is not to say that there are no facts in the Bible!
Is the word of God true? Yes, he has always proved himself trustworthy to me.
The apostles make a great deal of stating, not just the theology, but the facts about Jesus. John spoke of what he had touched, handled and seen about Jesus. Paul gives us an early credal statement consisting of the facts of Jesus' life. Some facts are important. But even in the gospels, events are chosen because they communicate truths that the writer wishes to communicate.
In many of Jesus' stories, he does not say that they are parables, but his disciples understand that they are parables. Does it matter whether they are true or not? The question is not asked. Everyone realises that the story has a purpose.
I sometimes think that literalists defend literal truth so that they do not have to understand the point of the passage. As Spurgeon once said:
quote:
Defend the Bible! I would no more think of defending the Bible than I would of defending a caged lion! The thing to do is to let it out!
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Steve.. Very sadly The Lake of fire for all eternity!
All the best Jim.
(1st posting so unsure about UBB etc!
Sorry to go back to a posting of two pages ago but I think it is fundamental to the debate.
Jim's reply is I think based on a literal interpretation of the bible. Howver if what he says is true and people are literally sent to a lake of everlasting flame if they do not believe in Christ (even if they have not heard of him?) - then myself and many other Christians I am sure would have great dificulty in worshipping such a god and thus end up in the lake!
I believe the bible contains much truth but is not every word is literally true. We should use the bible along with the many other gifts at our disposal to increase our faith and improve our Christian life.
One of these gifts is very much the experience of the Church ie the many Christians who have gone before us and are with us today pondering the same questions.
Surely the centre of Christianity is that magic word relationship. It is not something that is finite and contained within the pages of a book, however important that book may be. Our relationship with Christ is still continuing now.
I'm always struck how central scripture was to Jesus earthly ministry. From his temptation in the wilderness to the road to Emmaus, Jesus was constantly quoting and teaching the Old Testament. How odd that God himself should root his ministry in words that we so often dismiss as purely human, or whatever.
And I don't think we should discount the Holy Spirit's ability to constantly challenge us, both through scripture and through what our consciences are saying. It took real guts in the 18th/19th century to say that God is against slavery, and there isn't a strong Biblical case against. I think most Christians would see that as a case of the Holy Spirit revealing something new of God to the world.
Today, that challenge might be coming from the gay christian movement, or the green movement, or from the third world. But it's still there: the Holy Spirit is still blowing through us. And boy, can that wind get hot.
quote:
All you're doing here is uncritically regurgitating some fringe theology based on poor translation, overstated scriptural univocity and an exclusionary soteriology, coupled with unsupported proof-texting and highly dubious typology.
(ironic) Woo-hoo! That torrent of big difficult words will surely put the farmboy fundy in his place! (/ironic)
Actually what Jim is attempting to articulate in his endearingly bald fashion is not some "fringe theology" but a fairly standard line of evangelical exegesis.
Jim, I think you need to appreciate that a large percentage of people using these boards do NOT come from the type of theological background that you have, and are likely to ask serious questions about the things you write. It really is not very helpful to just assert what you believe without being prepared to answer specific questions. You need to try and engage with real debate, not just repeat what your pastor told you. Maybe you think people here are a bunch of liberal heathen and you are here to show them the truth? I don't know. But try talking to people, not AT them, otherwise all that happens is people get mad and start hacking each other.
quote:
Maybe you think people here are a bunch of liberal heathen and you are here to show them the truth?
Though if this is the case, this board is also not the place for crusading.
I've read through most of your posts and have come to the conclusion that your theological stance is very much grounded in the Word of Faith stream of teaching.
Am I correct in this assumption?
I believe I am as my foundational teaching many moons ago was gleaned via the likes of Copeland, Hagan, et al which is why I can see how you arrive at the conclusions you do.
However, since then I have had to completely revise how I view the bible, my faith and ultimately my relationship with God for I realised that I had not thought through any of this for MYSELF! I listenend to tapes, read books and assumed that these men had a handle on the word that was ultimate and right.
I don't hold that view anymore and one of the main reasons why is because they will blatently tell you they are the only ones with such knowledge and insight into the word. It is a very elitist attitude and very dangerous ground they walk on.
You will not convince anyone here of your views Jim - least of all me. But I understand where you are coming from and I'll only say this to you. You 'Pastor' is not the only man with the ability to teach you from the word. If you put yourself in that position and not search this out for yourself you miss out on a much wider richness and experience of God.
I hope I've not offended.
TC ...
We too wish you well.
quote:
Thanks for your comments,it would be very difficult if not impossible to explain Bible truth to anyone if they do not accept the the bible as truth in the first place.
Any way Jim how do you read the bible? this is one way which you or other people might be intrested.
When It comes to reading the bible. here is a simple exegetical tool to aid understanding of any passage. (it is I guess a protestant narrative approach)
First read the passage as if it was the only passage of the bible you have only ever read write down the key claims key events assess what form of literature it is if possible is it a song history ect?
Reread it in the Light of related passages int he same book. What difference does this make?
Re-read it in the Light of related passage for instance if reading from Kings see what chronicles or the prophets say about the same events.
Does this change our understanding and then ask yourselves why?
Grab hold of a book on the said passage and read that.
Look at the passage in the light of the the relevant section either hebrew Bible or NT then in the Light of the whole bible note down the changes in your understanding and see why. Finally look it in the Light of the doctrine of your own particular branch of the church (creeds etc) write down the differences in how you understand the bible.
As we move through the stages we realise how the understanding changes and the bible cahnges us. This is part of hermeneutics
(now that everyone has gone to sleep who read the above )
Jim do you find this method of reading the bible acceptable? If not why not?
I do realize that my posting of these few passages will be ignored for the most part by the majority of you who believe the Bible is a hit & miss sort of book that shouldn't be used for a literal, spiritual guide, & that you have the right to 'pick & choose' from the Word what you believe. For those of you who fit in this category, may I offer some more of Christ's teaching concerning you.....John 7:16-18.
The Bible is the only source of God's teachings & doctrines. Dispute the Word if you want to, after all, you have you free will to do so. But Christ tells it like it is in vs. 18. You may ignore the Bible and dispute it's literal meaning. But you are only seeking your own glory from your fellow man, and Christ states that you are unrighteous, and we know what becomes of the ones who have not the righteousness of Christ......Mat. 25:46.
M.C.
quote:
Bluntly the believer who rejects the authority of a God given pastor or the bible has no
chance of ever living the Christian way of life,and will receive divine discipline all of his life
then die and go to heaven never having glorified God.
if they go to heaven anyway, then whats your point?
Time to get a few facts out in the open. . .
Jim Powell (and Max Chapman - wondered when he was going to turn up) are members of the Berachah church, run by 'Colonel' R. B. Thieme. This church runs a worldwide tape ministry based on Thieme's own interpretation of the Bible from the original languages. Whilst Thieme's academic record is not in doubt, his teaching and discipling methods are - as anyone who has visited
Questioning R. B. Thieme, Jr.'s Berachah Church
will now understand.
Thieme is the only Christian pastor I know who:
Jim, having moved here from another board and seen what happened to JohnDM, has been very restrained here and has avoided breaking commandments 8 & 9, and therefore 1.
Jim's pastor teaches that anyone who desires good bible teaching will be provided with such by God. If that person is led by God to Thieme then surely, the logic goes, to turn away from that pastor would be to reject God's choice of pastor! Divine discipline must inevitably follow for those who disobey God (I'm serious; 'divine discipline' is a teaching of this church).
This is why Jim cannot contemplate, discuss or accept the shipmates answers where they differ from what he has been taught. Talk about being caught between the Rock and a hard place!
In His Name,
Tony
Jim Powell has only narrowly avoided violating the Ship's Third Commandment -- don't crusade -- up to this point. But this last post is really crossing the line. Jim, if you're not willing to debate because you don't think this is an issue that is arguable, then you are on the wrong board.
Max Chapman, you are already in violation of the Third Commandment. Please go read it. If you don't think that the way people should read the Bible is a debatable issue, that there are points of view other than your own that are valid, then you are on the wrong board.
Please take me seriously, folks. This is a debate board, not a place for lecturing, sermonizing, or crusading. Anyone who insists on doing so will have his/her account terminated.
quote:
Bluntly the believer who rejects the authority of a God given pastor or the bible has no chance of ever living the Christian way of life,and will receive divine discipline all of his life then die and go to heaven never having glorified God.
Rejection of Gods deligated authority of pastor teacher is a handycap that many suffer from,and the arrogant pride in ones own opinion is a disaster that causes so many believers to live such a pathetic life of fear and confusion.
1Peter5:5 states be under the authority of your pastor,and tells us that God makes war on the arrogent.
Analytically the approach to scripture is actually very similar to the Roman Catholic Church with the idea that before the Bible is understood it must be viewed in the Light of some set of preconcieved doctrine (I am not being saying something is wrong or right I am simply being analytical). Naturally the doctrine that your church uses is radically different but the hermeneutic is very similar and it appears to be given with greater authority than the Pope. It is that Kind of doctrine that many good reformists died to get rid of.
It is intresting that one of the best teachers I have known (he was stolen by california 
)His wish was for us to Know the scripture and to love it for ourselves I regret that you are unable to do this I pray that you will learn to love the Bible for what it is so the truth will set you free.
The answer to the quetion that you started with is All Scripture can be accepted as truth in the light of the teaching of my pastor.
I feel sorry for you and I shall pray for you and your branch of the church.
ENOUGH! I do not want to see another post on this board giving us the background of other posters, particularly when the relationship is antagonistic. If you have a problem with someone from another board, then take your squabbling back to that board. Quit cluttering up this one with it.
The next time I or any of the hosts sees one of these posts at the very least all mention of whatever church/board/argument is going to be edited out. If I'm feeling particularly peeved I'll just close the thread outright. There is enough to discuss on Ship of Fools without dragging ChurchNetUK internal issues here.
Those of you who are here to convince the rest of us of the errors of our ways -- that's not gonna fly. If you don't want to debate and LEARN from others then find another place on the Internet. The hosts and admins have plenty to do without trying to referee increasingly pointless and frustrating non-debates in which one party refuses to acknowledge the other.
Spread the word, guys. I'm just about at my limit with this.
Hey Tony, what's your deal man? You must have nightmares of me or something, do I really scare you that much, that you feel you have to forewarn others of my existance? Calm down, I'm sure these people have the ability to form their own opinion of me without you injecting your personal, misinformed, prejudices of me into the fray.
Ruth: You may as well just kick me off this deal right now. I have only made 1 post & have somehow broken a rule. After re-reading my post, I still have no idea of what I did wrong , but if my previous post was indeed a 'foul', just go ahead & boot me, because I ain't changin' nor conformin'.
M.C.
p.s. It is probably not smart to challenge the moderators.
quote:
Originally posted by Max Chapman:
Ruth: You may as well just kick me off this deal right now. I have only made 1 post & have somehow broken a rule. After re-reading my post, I still have no idea of what I did wrong , but if my previous post was indeed a 'foul', just go ahead & boot me, because I ain't changin' nor conformin'.
It is customary to read the rules and guidelines of a forum before entering the discussion. The links are on the main board -- click on "board home" and you'll find links to the Ship's Ten Commandments and the FAQs.
If you do so, you will find that the Ship's Eighth Commandment, as I said, is Don't Crusade. (Sorry I gave you the wrong number last time, but hey, I was an English major.) The Sixth is Respect the Hosts. The First is Don't Be a Jerk. If you refuse to abide by the rules that govern this forum, you will indeed be booted.
You hereby are given One Last Chance. I don't care that you've only posted twice. The hosts and administrators are all volunteers and this site is privately owned, so I see no reason to put up with this nonsense.
Of course we are all well advised to read the Bible, and it a fine Protestant tradition that we all read it for ourselves. But reading it without the help of bright people who have read it before me seems like making life way more difficult than it needs to be, as well as ignoring the real gifts God offers us in the writings of Biblical scholars. Emphasis on the plural there -- not just one favorite scholar who says what you already think about the Bible.
Also, I don't see the point of reading the Bible straight through (except to be able to say you did) since it's not one book. It's a collection of a wide variety of writings done at different times by different people and then collected even later by still more people. It's an anthology, not a novel.
quote:
You may ignore the Bible and dispute it's literal meaning
I was stating with my references to ecclesiates that you will not take the passage literally because there is no hope of a ressurection or salvation reference in Job just picks that up.
Pikachu said
quote:
Well, my beliefs are based on my overall belief that the Bible is true. Not what a pastor/televangelist/cult leader/SOF poster says, but what I have read in the Bible
How do you understand the word true?
the view that stowaway suggested was basically that the Bible reveals the truth of God and Jesus
Do you agree with this or or do you use some other approach?
Pikachu has suggested we read the Bible. A few years back I did read it cover-to-cover (although parts of Leviticus were rather hard going ). I would probably recommend taking it a bit slower, there are a couple of study guides out there that go through the Bible, with questions and brief comments, in a couple of years. Much better to study than just read the Bible.
I would say that, yes, the Bible (in it's entirity - which means individual passages are only fully true when taken within the larger context of Scripture) is true. The problem comes when we ask "what is meant by 'true'?"
The Bible is a truthful record of the experiences of God by some of the people of God, expressed in the best way those people could manage (and probably expressed far better than I could manage if I had the same experience). There is always going to be a difficulty relating those experiences to our own, and the form and language of those writings to our own situation.
I cannot except a hyper-literal view of Scripture, nor a full-blown literal innerrancy. Firstly, and most importantly, because Scripture itself makes no such claim; yeah I know "all Scripture is God-breathed", but that passage doesn't say it's correct in every detail. Also, there is such a lack of internal consistancy within Scripture that it is obviously not meant to be a literal historico-scientific account of history nor a systematic theology. If God had wanted us to have such a book, that's what he'd have given us.
I would add that I do accept that Scripture is the supreme authority when it comes to matters of faith and doctrine, interpreted through the witness & tradition of the Church; the teaching of church ministers, the thoughts of theologians and commentators and discussion with "ordinary Christians" (including the insights of people in this forum).
Sorry, it's rather a long post
Alan
Also, when the book of Revelation was written, there was no way for the entire world to witness an event at the same time it was happening. For years this prophesy has 'stumped' scholars as to the meaning of the 2 prophets being resurrected in front of the whole world, these scholars had no idea of the coming technology to equip the world with tv's & satelites, but God knew it. Will, I guess you would just say this is coincedence huh?
Ecclesiastes may be a book of poetry, but it doesn't make it erroneous. If I were to write a poem about Einstien being a bright person, would the fact that I wrote a poem somehow nullify his brilliant formulas & make him an idiot?
Nightlamp: I guess I'm missing the point you are trying to make with Ecc. I think that Ecc. is literal, & I used Job to help clarify that the lost have no hope after death & the dead (lost) have no knowledge of what is happening (on Earth) after death.
M.C.
First of all, poetry is "true" but it does not have to "factual." If I say "my love is a red red rose," I don't mean that my love is a red red rose; I am using a figure of speech known as a metaphor.
Poetry is figurative language; therefore the truth it gives us is figurative. It is neither factual nor erroneous. When TS Eliot said "Let us go then, you and I/ As the evening spreads out against the sky/ Like a patient etherised on a table," he was using an image of one thing (a patient going under the gas) to describe another (the way the evening grows dark.) It is neither a true nor a false image, it is merely an appropriate image.
That's why we object to poems being taken literally. Because they're not meant to be. They use images. As Emily Dickinson would say, it's not a question of not telling the truth, it's a question of telling it slant.
And it's about a different order of truth. Shakespeare's play are far from being factually accurate: but they tell truths about human behaviour and feelings in the most glorious poetry. It doesn't have to be factual to be true.
Which is why I always object when someone says I don't believe that the Bible is true when I say I don't believe that Jonah didn't get swallowed by a whale. Jonah doesn't have to be swallowed by a whale for the book of Jonah to be true.
Not that most fundamentalists seem to get that. So literal-minded, they couldn't spot a metaphor if it came up and bit them on the leg.
quote:
Nightlamp: I guess I'm missing the point you are trying to make with Ecc. I think that Ecc. is literal, & I used Job to help clarify that the lost have no hope after death & the dead (lost) have no knowledge of what is happening (on Earth) after death.
I see no mention of 'the lost'in the passages you mentioned.
The dead are the dead and in a literal understanding of the passages we see ecc 9:2 all share a common destiny that is death with no hope of anything.
In a non literal approach to the scripture we might say the writer of Ecc had no concept of live after death or ressurection he was also writing this book of wisdom at a depressed part of his life and we understand it in a different way in the light of the Gospel and the NT.
At a guess Max chapman you are understanding the bible in a non-literal way that is fine since we all do so. I am simply pointing out that is what we are all doing so but from different angles.
Jim Powell had great respect of pastors supposing one suggested go read the bible for yourself and read it in the light of different authors would he do so? I say he should but he might not even be reading this
and he might not think Nightlamp is that important but then he does not know who I am
Also, when the book of Revelation was written, there was no way for the entire world to witness an event at the same time it was happening. For years this prophesy has 'stumped' scholars as to the meaning of the 2 prophets being resurrected in front of the whole world, these scholars had no idea of the coming technology to equip the world with tv's & satelites, but God knew it. Will, I guess you would just say this is coincedence huh?
Well, to me Revelation is just Daniel on acid. How about the Whole World was simply a part of the World they knew? In fact, here is the Greek word for you:
3625 oikoumene {oy-kou-men'-ay}
feminine participle present passive of 3611 (as noun, by implication of 1093); TDNT - 5:157,674; n f
AV - world 14, earth 1; 15
1) the inhabited earth 1a) the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians 1b) the Roman empire, all the subjects of the empire 1c) the whole inhabited earth, the world 1d) the inhabitants of the earth, men 2) the universe, the world.
Seems fairly subjective and interpretational to me. When you throw in the word "earth" it gets even more subjective
1093 ge {ghay}
contracted from a root word; TDNT - 1:677,116; n f
AV - earth 188, land 42, ground 18, country 2, world 1, earthly + 1537 + 3588 1; 252
1) arable land 2) the ground, the earth as a standing place 3) the main land as opposed to the sea or water 4) the earth as a whole 4a) the earth as opposed to the heavens 4b) the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals 5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region.
Ecclesiastes may be a book of poetry, but it doesn't make it erroneous. If I were to write a poem about Einstien being a bright person, would the fact that I wrote a poem somehow nullify his brilliant formulas & make him an idiot?
Steve answered this brilliantly
I am taking it that your post was directed to me.? Some people are so quick to try and 'correct' another person that they forget the name of the person they think they're 'attempting' to correct.
I do agree that the passage in Ecc. is somewhat vague (maybe it is because of the use of poetry?), but this is the very reason that I used Job to clarify the exact meaning of Ecc. from the outset.
If one can't figure out what a certain passage means, there is usually a reference script to help you along. The Bible knits itself together, if one would take the time to humble themselves. This is called Bible study. Heaven forbid you should do such a thing.....2 Tim. 2:15
M.C.
Even if the bible were infallible (which I for one can't see the Bible saying about itself) it doesn't make a poem any less a poem, a parable any less a parable. There does not have to be a real Good Samaritan for that parable to be true.
Poems and parables also tend to be open texts, not closed texts. They are not instructions on how to programme a computer. They have, by their very nature, more than one interpretation. You can return to great poetry time after time and get something different each time. That's what you get from the Song of Songs, from Genesis 1, the Song of Deborah, John Chapter 1, the Psalms. The Bible is full of poetry, which is why it's a great work of literature as well as a great work of devotion.
That doesn't mean that all interpretations are right, by the way. You can't make Thou shalt not kill into Thou shalt. But the Bible is a far more open text than you're prepared to deal with, Jim. Which is a shame, becuse you're missing so much beauty.
This poetry stuff gets everywhere. And 2 Tim 3.15 doesn't say that the bible is literally true. It doesn't even tell you what it means by scripture: it was written 200 years before the canon of scripture was decided upon. It might possibly refer to the Torah, which were the only parts of scripture than universally accepted. Or it could refer to the Septuagint version of the OT, which was fairly widely available in Jewish/early Christian circles. Which included the Apocrypha, by the way (I think: I stand to be corrected). But if the letter is Pauline (it might not be), it won't include the Gospels. And I doubt St Paul thought his own letters were scripture.
As for the Bible being internally consistent, I'd like to see you prove it.
Ecc. 9:5 has made a distinction. Job helps to clarify the distinction. Eventhough the exact words 'lost' do not appear in Ecc. 9:5. Those without Christ are spiritually dead (lost) and when they die in this state, they are in pain & torment & have no knowledge of Earthly things. In order to come to this conclusion, one must have a sound knowledge of scripture to help 'tie-in' the Bible as a whole. After all, the Bible is the mind of Christ, one cannot just pick a script out of the air and make a valid case as to its meaning without having other script to fall back on.
Will; I'm not even gonna bother answering your silly post. If you are such a babe that has no knowledge of the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah, I'm not gonna waste my time with you.
M.C.
Jim made a great statement earlier in this thread. His point was "how can I prove the Bible is true to someone who doesn't give it any validity"?
Steve; I have what is called 'faith'. I have faith that God is infallible & beyond reproach. I have faith that anything that God does is perfect (and this includes the completed canon of scripture). God is infallible & His doctrine is perfect. Yes, I admit that it does take a little faith to accept this, but not much. The 1st thing one must do is repent (change your mind concerning God & His plan). After this God will give you the faith you need to believe in His Son & His plan.....Eph. 2:8-9.
It is your choice Steve, may you choose correctly.
Max C.
quote:
If you are such a babe that has no knowledge of the OT prophecies concerning the Messiah, I'm not gonna waste my time with you.
Pretend I am such a babe, even after 40 years boy and man in the church, like Will, I can't think of any.
I can think of passages, such as the Servant passages in Isaiah, e.g. ch42,49,52,53, which have been interpreted in the light of the NT as referring to Jesus. But I see nothing in them to suggest that the writers of Isaiah were aware of this. They seem to think they were writing about the Exile and the return to Jerusalem.
If these passages were regarded at the time as clear references to the coming Messiah, the Jews in the intertestimental period would have expected a Jesus type figure (the suffering servant) rather than the great leader who would lead Israel out of suppression. The fact is that Jesus did not fulfil any of their expectations of what the Messiah would be.
So, where are the passages that don't require us to re-interpret the OT through the light of the NT?
DavidG
Max, if you want to pull the kind of crap you just pulled with Will then take it to Hell where it belongs. I've about had it with the tone of your posts that basically says "if you don't believe what I believe you are an idiot".
Those of you who are not here with at least a semi-open mind -- that is, conscious that the possibility that you just might be wrong exists -- get out. Or change your ways before I toss you out. I'm not providing a pulpit for those who want to teach the rest of us the errors of our ways. Dialogue and debate or GO. I mean it.
The Occamian understanding of this proof text is that all of the dead are insensate, unconscious, oblivious.
To interpret this to mean that the dead are aware, sentient, alive but unknowing is a wonderful double paradox.
One can easily and more elegantly reconcile the nicely ambiguous references to the afterlife to this, with the (second?) resurrection, in which those not aware of salvation, the vast majority of humanity, are evangelized for the first and most effective, inexorably gracious and last time.
Thank God it isn't down to the Church!
Salvation is Christ and the faith in him that will come in the resurrection.
Because if it only comes to the paltry few fundies, then it's Hell for me please, along with 99.9999% of humanity. And God is a useless, racist, sadist.
What worries me about the exclusivist, esoteric, elite, elect, is that they will choose Hell rather than share God's grace in the resurrection with scum like me, or Jews, homosexuals, Moslems, Timothy McVeigh, Hindus, Neanderthals, pagans, animists, Catholics etc, etc.
I fear for their lives when they find God accepting anyone who loves Him on sight.
The fact they they would rather believe that God made the Jews of early to mid '40s Europe to burn twice, the second time forever, at the hands of nominal Christians who are in heaven is Pythonesque to say the least.
quote:
Ecc. 9:5 has made a distinction. Job helps to clarify the distinction. Eventhough the exact words 'lost' do not appear in Ecc. 9:5. Those without Christ are spiritually dead (lost) and when they die in this state, they are in pain & torment & have no knowledge of Earthly things. In order to come to this conclusion, one must have a sound knowledge of scripture to help 'tie-in' the Bible as a whole
I agree but if you look at Ecc verses in there literal sense and if you include the Job verses we can only conclude all who die are dead.
But if you follow a non literal approach ie using other scripture to interpret the passage then you could come to the conclusion that you have arrived at but other conclusions are possible.
Max C you have agreed that to truly understand the Bible it must be interpreted in the Light of other scripture but this method is not literalism it is saying a bible passage striaght forward meaning can be changed so 'truth' is found after this process is gone through not when reading the Bible.
The only point I am trying to make is to make the Bible into the form of 'truth we want' we all come to it with a preconcieved ideas some people are willing to realiserthat there approach to bible needs to change and some people don't
A true literalist would be confused
It is a pity MC that you were unable to enter a discussion with Will and his post but I guess you may not have understood it.
Jim you said
quote:
Moses,Paul,Peter,David,Daniel,John,James,I think these believers were all fundies dont you?
Just considering the time of Jesus Peter and Paul I suspect the fundementalists of that time were the Sadducees who did not believe in the ressurection of the dead and who held to the literal idea of Ecclesiastees that when some is dead they are dead the good and the bad. The Pharisees may also have been considered fundemetalists in there interpretation of the law but they were a broard church which almost certianly included Jesus.
Peter, paul and jesus were the rebellious or liberals since they believed in the ressurection, the fact that Torah did not have to be kept literally. They were also really liberal in the fact that God's grace went beyond the Jewish people which went agianst the fundementals of Jewish faith at theat time.
I am aware that much of the above is open to disagreement but I considered Jims statement was not thought through enough.
A couple of things. First the oft-misunderstood nature of the Bible and the Word of God (Sam alluded to this a ways back).
The WORD of God (the Logos) is Jesus Christ. In our religion we worship the Logos -- Christ. The Bible is a record of the Logos. The Bible is NOT istelf the Logos. We do not worship the Bible (this is Orthodox Christianity 101). Contrast this with the Muslim understanding. Muslims believe that the Koran is the Logos, that God dictated it. Christians do not believe that God dictated the Bible. Christians believe the Bible was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, but I hope the difference between "inspiration" and "dictation" is obvious enough not to be belaboured here.
Secondly, the Bible, in part and whole, is a foundational text of two world religions (Judaism and Christianity), it is a history book, a piece of literature, a theological work, an example of ancient Greco-Roman epistolary practice, as well as containing all things necessary to salvation.
Now, in the nineteenth century many very intelligent and well-educated German scholars began a systematic study of the Bible to which we refer as "Higher Criticism" (they were later joined by well-respected English and American scholars). Higher Criticism is an attempt to understand the Bible in its context AND form as literature, poetry, history, theology, politics, as well as to apply the basic tools of textual understanding. Before spouting off about the intention of ancient writers, or about prophecy fulfillments and what not, I very strongly suggest a little light reading in any of the excellent scholarly treatments of criticism of the Bible.
A very good introduction is "The New Testament : a historical introduction to the early Christian writings" by Bart Ehrman.
I can never understand why anyone who claims the Bible as the source of their faith and salvation wouldn't want to learn a little more about it.
Knowledge is power, use it wisely.
HT
It's a pity really.
Jim, I don't know what it is that makes you need such a sense of security that you would sacrifice your freedom to explore the alternatives you have been presented. My concern is that a need for such security conceals a lot of pain.
I went through a period of fundamentalist belief. Looking back on it I think it was a natural result of being brought up in an abusive family. I think I wanted the security of a set of beliefs I didn't question, and of knowing that I was in, safe.
Everyone who argues with you is give proof texts. Believe me Jim, the reason you do not get proof texts back is because most people do not use the Bible in this way. Nobody likes talking to one who does not engage with their argument and they get annoyed with you. You may interpret this as persecution, but really it's because your behaviour comes over as dismissive and arrogant.
If you persist in pushing arguments that I for one have heard varients of for the last twenty years, without intending to grow in knowledge or faith then I would suggest that everyone leaves you alone.
Experience tells me that you may be ready to talk again some time.
Not angry, just sad. I thought for a moment I saw a spark in you, but you seem to have retreated into your "certainties".
God Bless
Christ said know the truth and the truth will make you free.Free from the power of the sin nature ,and from Satanic slavery.
I have total confidence in the Integrity of God,yes I am certain of my position in Christ,and do not live my life under the power of fear.Fear is not the plan of God.
You claim I am threatened by this Liberal garbage that is posted on here,Not so!You are judgeing me by your own feeble standards.
All the best Jim.
That God is most gracious?
That all sin from and to the figurative ends of time is forgiven in Christ and will be revealed to humanity in the resurrection?
That your definition of truth is personally limited, unchallenged, unexamined, epistemologically narrower than even mine? That you cannot and will not come down to our gutter and lift us up from it, stoop to conquer?
Am I on dangerous ground here Admin?
That your truth of the Bible isn't the same as my truth which isn't the same as woolly liberal rationalist, touchy feely, truth?
I have in common with you a conservative approach to much but I'm so liberal on grace I frighten liberals.
Whose truth is right Jim? Whose truth is true, truer, truest?
What is the highest truth? The greatest truth? The most important truth? The most fundamental truth? Is it true that they are synonyms for absolute truth?
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
Stowaway, You are 100% wrong !
quote:
You call me arrogant
quote:
You claim I am threatened by this Liberal garbage that is posted on here
quote:
You are judgeing me by your own feeble standards.
You have said before that you think this is not a forum for debate where you are comfortable, and that you are leaving. Perhaps it would be best if you did that, and save us the trouble of getting rid of you ourselves.
Alan
Purgatory host
But that's the only apologies you are going to get. You seem to be implying that I am not a Christian. Well, I resent that. You are obviously incapable of arguing without descending to personal abuse.
I have been a Christian for over twenty years and I've also got a brain, which I use as much as I can in the service of truth. I moght be right, I might be wrong; but I sure as hell will not have someone else telling me what I do and do not believe.
Personal abuse has no place here.
i think there is...
quote:
Originally posted by Will:
G-d gave us 10 simple rules to follow, later narrowed to a very acceptable 2 by Jesus. If we can do this, why is not that not good enough?
I'm with you, Will.
I really think that this is what Scripture is about, and all the rest of it just supports and explains those simple rules.
quote:
Originally posted by Max Chapman:
...when the book of Revelation was written, there was no way for the entire world to witness an event at the same time it was happening. For years this prophesy has 'stumped' scholars as to the meaning of the 2 prophets being resurrected in front of the whole world, these scholars had no idea of the coming technology to equip the world with tv's & satelites, but God knew it.
So, do we assume that it's our mission to preach the gospel to the ends of the earth and to equip everyone with a TV before this prophecy is fulfilled? Or is this not a literal "whole world", Max?
Hmmm. You may have to reconsider this one, don't you reckon? Or think these things thru' for yourself rather than just accept what you're taught.
fs
Max, Jim - I Wonder which definition the author intended?
quote:
Max, Jim - I Wonder which definition the author intended?
That's an easy one. "The definition that best fits my presuppositions".
Jim, I appreciate that you don't follow or adhere to any of the preachers I mentioned however your overall tone and belief system reflects their wildly. Which leads me to believe that some things just get regurgitated as long as somebody believes it.
A few questions for both you and Max:
Having been where you are at I have some idea where you are coming from but I'd like to hear you articulate it anyway.
TC...
quote:
Jim, I appreciate that you don't follow or adhere to any of the preachers I mentioned however your overall tone and belief system reflects their wildly.
It is very bad form when I have to correct myself. ::sigh::
What I meant to say above was that even though Jim stated that he did not listen to or adhere to any of the teachers / teachings I mentioned in my earlier post, his beliefs and slant on things very much stems from this camp of fundamentalism.
Does that make sense?
TC...
You say: "I have faith that anything that God does is perfect (and this includes the completed canon of scripture). God is infallible & His doctrine is perfect".
I have no quarm with the assertion that God in infallible but the fact remains that the Bible was written through humans and so is, by definition, imperfect.
Whilst everything that God does is perfect, this does not meant that the end product is. For instance, though God created us in His image, we are imperfect. In the same way, whilst those writing scripture were called to do so by the Holy Spirit, the writers created a text in their own words, imposing their own interpretations and social contexts upon the work. For this reason, the Bible is a flawed text, albeit a very useful guide in how one might follow God's law.
I don't think that God ever intended the Bible to be a 'Ten Steps to Heaven'. Rather, I believe He requires us to use our minds and imagination to figure out how to live according to His will. I think that it is dangerous for us to rely on the Bible to provide literal answers to all issues.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I'm with you, Will.I really think that this is what Scripture is about, and all the rest of it just supports and explains those simple rules.
A rabbi declared that he could recite the whole of the Law while standing on his head. His students were impressed, and asked him to demonstrate. So he stood on his head, and said:
"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and your neighbour as yourself"
Then he stood on his feet and said: "The rest is just application"
BarbaraG
Here is just a small sample of the OT prophecies concerning various things of the Messiah. (which you all said didn't exist)
1) Ex. 12:46..Num. 9:12...Psalm 34:12 Not a bone in Christ's body shall be broken...ties into John 19:36
2) Hos. 11:1 God's Son is called out of Egypt. ties in with Matt.2:15
3) Isaiah 7:14 Virgin birth prophesied.
4) Micah 5:2...Jesus comes out of Bethlehem.
5) Psalm 22:16-18...Christ's hands and feet are pierced on the Cross & the gambling for His clothes foretold.
6) Isaiah 50:6..Christ's beating by the Roman soldiers foretold. Spitting is His face foretold......
It is a historical fact that Jesus Christ was indeed here on Earth. It is a historical fact that He was indeed Crucified.
Hey all you hosts....I believe that commandment #5 should be upheld. These passages have proven many of you wrong, now it's time to own up to it......On 2nd thought, forget it. I don't need any accolades from a bunch of idiotic, arrogant, self-righteous losers such as yall.
That's right. You can't be a Christian & doubt the validity of the Bible.
Repent or keep a lot of ice handy. From what I understand, Hell is quite warm
Have fun,
Max C.
PS: Erin, you dissapoint me. I thought a down to Earth southerner such as yourself would be more grounded in Faith. You act just like the self-righteous Brits...what a shame 
You have a lot to learn, Max, but alas you will not be learning it here. Buh-bye.
I have no problem with the prophesies you quote. . .I have just checked them all and my NIV Study Bible makes exactly the same OT to NT connections you pointed out. (I can't see where Psalm 34:12 fits in though - a typo perhaps?).
Having made a perfectly good point, you then launch into a tirade of abuse against other shipmates for no other reason than that you thought that they might, just possibly, disagree with you. (Not that they did disagree with you, you just misread their posts!) By so doing you have broken commandments 3 & 6 - are you going for the set?
I am enormously amused that you think Erin should take your side for no other reason than her geographical proximity to you!
YIC
Tony
All right, y'all, Max is gone. I don't mind leaving this thread open to continue the discussion of the original subject. However, I don't want to see any piling on someone who can no longer defend himself. Neither do I want to see comments directed towards someone who can’t answer.
Let's get back to the discussion at hand, shall we? Otherwise I’ll close this thread.
Erin
Max' list: (my comments in bold)
Here is just a small sample of the OT prophecies concerning various things of the Messiah. (which you all said didn't exist)
1) Ex. 12:46..Num. 9:12...Psalm 34:12 Not a bone in Christ's body shall be broken...ties into John 19:36
Exodus passage is simply rules for the passover lamb. Same for Numbers. As for the Psalm, I do not see the connection? Somebody help me out here?
Sorry, but none of that ties in with John 19:36. One is talking about the passover lamb and rules for same. Explain how that would tie in to John without some mighty liberal interpretation.
2) Hos. 11:1 God's Son is called out of Egypt. ties in with Matt.2:15
Isn't that a metaphor which clearly refers to the entire people of Israel leaving Egypt? Hosiah continues on to say, "He shall not return to Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his King." Hosiah 11.5. This is clearly referring to the conquest of Israel by Assyria, or did Jesus become an Assyrian citizen?
Same thing with Matthew's interpretation. How does this become a fulfilled prophecy of Messiah?
3) Isaiah 7:14 Virgin birth prophesied.
Ah, my favorite misinterpretation. For one thing the verse should saythe virgin, not a virgin. I believe the RSV has made this correction. The prophet is speaking to King Ahaz here of his new bride. He was simply saying if the King had faith in the L-rd and guts enough to name his child what G-d commanded, then he would be a mighty king and be delivered from certain defeat.
Further reading of the chapter shows all things Ahaz could bring about with faith. None of these things happened after Jesus' birth. Quite the opposite in fact. I suggest reading the whole chapter in context and not picking out one verse.
I also did not see a "fulfillment" verse.
This one?
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
When was he ever called Immanuel? Also, right before that in verse 21, it says his name will be called Jesus. Explain, please?
Also, Mat 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
Could someone show me where in Tanakh this fulfillment comes from?
4) Micah 5:2...Jesus comes out of Bethlehem.
Finally a Messianic prophecy, but where is the fulfillment?
Perhaps Mat 2:6 And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.
No that could not be it because Jesus did not govern anything. Explain please?
5) Psalm 22:16-18...Christ's hands and feet are pierced on the Cross & the gambling for His clothes foretold.
I will not quibble much with this one. It is a song. The author also speaks of unicorns and lions and bulls of Bashar(am). None of these things are mentioned in the gospels.
6) Isaiah 50:6..Christ's beating by the Roman soldiers foretold. Spitting is His face foretold......
Once more a single verse plucked from the chapter. Reading in context shows once again He is speaking to the people of Israel
I will start a new thread and explain my presence on this board for the 2 or 3 interested. Please believe me when I say it is not to be antagonistic.
Ruth, I do remember that you said something about it being unnecessary to read the Bible straight through. True, it is 66 books (the Protestant one anyway..) but it reads beautifully like one continuous story. Besides, it's easier to see the progression of events, if it is read continuously. Yes, I trudged through Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy (great for insomnia!) but it was worth it. Seriously, try it! It makes so much more sense when read straight through, at least it did to me.
I would say that the Bible is like anything else - the amount of time you spend on it depends upon your interest in it. I don't believe that a person's theological correctness with get them in/keep them out of heaven. How much does a person want to learn about God/Jesus? The Bible will teach you. I have tried to learn the Bible well, so that when it is discussed, I can discern for myself what statements agree/disagree with the Bible, as I understand it.
My habit has been to staunchly defend the truth of the Bible. But to those who say, "define truth" - Jesus said He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.. beyond that, I can't tell you a definition. And to those who say that the Bible can't be totally true, or words to that effect - well, we can keep searching the Bible or any other source, as long as we are living on this earth we will never know God 100%, not even through Jesus because He was limited by His humanity. The Bible, as dearly as I love it, was limited by its human writers. Some day we'll know the real Truth.
The person who posted that the Bible was not dictated by God, but instead, inspired by the Holy Spirit - that makes a lot of sense to me.
Just a word of encouragement.
I'm finding your posts fascinating and stimulating, and I'm sure many others are too. You're very welcome here!
(even if your perspective sometimes makes things a little uncomfortable for us "comfortable Christians"!)
Keep on postin', friend!
fs
I really can't improve on the argument that says that if The Bible was inspired by God (i.e. God didn't use a dictaphone) and thus seen through a glass darkly, then how can we expect to get the interpretation 100% right ourselves? So no, I can't accept scripture as truth, merely as containing (some) truth and pointing to God, The Truth.
If our God is one who demands we get straight A's in exegesis and hermeneutics, then heaven is going to be verrrrry quiet.
The problem with relying on one perspective when it comes to understanding and interpreting The Bible (as, I'm afraid it appears Jim and Max do) is that you rely on one person's infallibility. And no-one is infallible, so you create a house of cards that you end up defending till it finally crumbles. And, trust me, I've been there... and don't want to go there again.
I'm from an evangelical background, as are many here from what I know and have seen here. Some remain firmly of that "persuasion" (for want of a better word - sorry, it is 12.50 AM), and some , like me, aren't sure quite what they are any more. But evangelicalism is a broad church, despite what many may say within and without that label.
Despite our differences can, I hope, learn from each others' perspectives and traditions, even if we vehemently disagree. That's why I welcome Will's presence here in particular, as I've already said.
Enough for now...
fs
Will: Not to defend Max (!), but I'm sure you're aware (painfully?) that much Christian interpretation of the OT is done looking backwards through what we see as the full revelation of God in Jesus Christ. That said, I'm going to copy and save your virgin birth stuff for the next time I end up arguing against the virgin birth. [You do need to quit with Max now, or it will be piling on and Erin will get mad. Believe me, the wrath of Erin is no small thing!]
The fact is that the NT writers use OT texts in ways that are not pointed to by their context. This points to an understanding of the texts that they are not simple prophecies, but inspired writings containing almost subtextual truths that the writers couldn't have known about - themes that are brought to fruition in Jesus - virgin born, suffering servants, unblemished lamb, pierced God.
Interestingly, these themes also appear in other texts and religious stories - Odin pinned to a tree by a spear to win wisdom for mankind, the dying god Balder (who I suspect originally returned to life in the spring and was slain in the autumn), the triune goddesses Matrones, the resurrected Osiris, and so on and so forth.
The point is that the NT writers seem to have had a 'through a glass darkly' understanding of the OT scriptures, rather than a literalist one. By literalist exegesis rules, the bones broken reference can refer only to the passover lamb, not as a prophecy of the means of Jesus' crucifixion.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Pikachu -- Actually, what I'd like to do sometime is read the OT in chronological order; read along in the history books, switching over to each of the prophets at the appropriate times.
How about (as a slightly different tack) reading them in the approximate order in which they were written? Find out from a good book on the bible when most people think each book came into being and read them in that order, to see how the development of religious thought happened.
Could be interesting!
quote:
Originally posted by SteveWal:
Could get very complicated, Groucho. Especially in the first five books. I mean, you'd have to read Gen 2 before Gen 1, for a start.
You would also have the problem of the psalms!
I'm not saying it would be easy, but it could be a very revealing exercise. Having said that, I doubt that it is one I will be undertaking in the near future. If someone does, though, be sure to let me know how it goes....
As Dave Tomlinson says in The Post-Evangelical, this makes defending the Bible a monumental waste of time. We would do better to study it and meditate and pray over it and come to some workable lifestyle/faith.
quote:
Originally posted by faintsaint:
WillJust a word of encouragement.
I'm finding your posts fascinating and stimulating, and I'm sure many others are too. You're very welcome here!
(even if your perspective sometimes makes things a little uncomfortable for us "comfortable Christians"!)Keep on postin', friend!
fs
Firstly can I agree with fs here and secondly can I say that if reading these discussions in Purgatory doesn't regularly make "comfortable Christians" a little less comfortable then we are not doing things properly.
Following Christ should never be a comfortable option, but a permanent challenge.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve_R:
Following Christ should never be a comfortable option, but a permanent challenge.
Exactly. That's why I value Will's posts, because they give me at least a totally new perspective on things, and make me uneasy.
Time and time again, I hear someone else's slant (usually some reknowned or not-so-reknowned theologian or denominational absolute] on things, recycled as if it's the person's own fresh idea.
To hear from a Jewish perspective is a totally new experience for me... maybe I'm just an iconoclast? But it rings my bell.
And Will, James sounds like an excellent choice for your Bible study. It can be seen a contentious if read as "works not faith" (which I'm sure you already realise).
You could have a thread here in Purgatory running alongside it perhaps?
fs
quote:
You could have a thread here in Purgatory running alongside it perhaps?
Virtual Bible study! Fabulous idea.
quote:
Originally posted by Stowaway:
Isn't one of the problems with saying that the Bible is 100% true that, in the end, you are only able to work with the part of it that you understand and are able to agree with. If I do not agree with it then maybe I don't understand it!
This is a great comment. I believe that the Bible is 100% true, but only in a certain sense. It is true only if you understand it properly.
I think that the Bible needs to be seen as a divinely magical entity - a book that in a miraculous way is the actual presence of God on earth.
According to this view, the Bible becomes a book which is open or closed, true or false, depending on how it is approached and understood. Fundamentally it is a book about God and heaven, and it is open only to people who go to it wanting to know how to have heaven in their life. The key to the book is in the heart of the reader. It is a genuine magical object right out of the fairy tales.
If you don't have the key, then, the Bible makes no sense. Obviously there is a kind of Catch 22 built into this equation. This is what makes the original question of this thread so difficult to answer.
quote:
..can I say that if reading these discussions in Purgatory doesn't regularly make "comfortable Christians" a little less comfortable then we are not doing things properly.Following Christ should never be a comfortable option, but a permanent challenge.
As an old southern evangelist once said,
quote:
A minister's job is to comfort the
afflicted; an evangelist's job is to afflict the comfortable.
Interesting implication.
It has to be said that it is amazing that so much heat, with at least one person being fed to the sharks, can be generated by such an apparently trivial subject. Why should this be? And why should threats of hellfire be dished out to those who disagree? It's weird.
I have to say that for me the bible is so full of so full of gratituous and bizarre contradictions and absurdities that I don't see how anyone can think of any of it is inspired.
Just to take one example, consider the two accounts of the Census taken by David (this has been referred to on another thread). In 2 Samuel it's God who gets David to take it, in 1 Chronicles it's Satan. Figures and totals are different, including in particular the price paid for the threshing floor, paid for in silver in one case and (much more) gold in the other case.
It seems to me that when you've got duplicated accounts there are discrepancies between the versions as here, various other places and of course over the ressurection story.
Why then should we take "as gospel" the rest of it?
Moreover the selection of the canon seems a bit dubious to me. In particular the Christian books which talk about it explain why the OT apocrypha was discounted but gloss quickly over the NT one. One has to go elsewhere to learn, for example, that the Shepherd of Hermas nearly made it whilst 2 Peter nearly didn't. Also Jude's quotation of an apocryphal OT book does surely suggest that Jude was wrongly included or the OT book wrongly excluded?
I know from my own experience and self-observation that I get defensive and obstreperous when I am on weak argumentative ground. As the fur has flown on this threat mostly when people have taken a strong literalist stance, doesn't this say something?
Two uninspired observations on what Mr. Collins brought up:
In the OT, there is often a sense where both God and Satan act. One example is the evil spirit that God let torment Saul. Or God allowing Satan to mess with Job. Later on, God is no way denies He was behind Job's suffering. MUCH more could be written on this thorny subject, of course.
Jude quoted the Apocalypse of Enoch. (I'm good sometimes!) Quoting something does not necessarily mean that all of what is quoted is inspired truth. Paul quoted a pagan Cretan poet, you might remember.
I don't know where to go from here... Oh that's right. I need to get ready for church.
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
Two uninspired observations on what Mr. Collins brought up:In the OT, there is often a sense where both God and Satan act. One example is the evil spirit that God let torment Saul. Or God allowing Satan to mess with Job. Later on, God is no way denies He was behind Job's suffering. MUCH more could be written on this thorny subject, of course.
Jude quoted the Apocalypse of Enoch. (I'm good sometimes!) Quoting something does not necessarily mean that all of what is quoted is inspired truth. Paul quoted a pagan Cretan poet, you might remember.
To which I'd reply in the first case that (the book of) Job says what's going on. It doesn't say in one place that God did something and in another parallel report of the same event that Satan did something.
In the second, Paul quoted a pagan poet, yes, but he wasn't making out that the said poet was inspired in some way - unlike the quotation from Enoch in Jude.
quote:
Originally posted by John Collins:
In the second, Paul quoted a pagan poet, yes, but he wasn't making out that the said poet was inspired in some way - unlike the quotation from Enoch in Jude.
Alan
Hate to be so contentious but that raises another question for me - why does nearly no one study them - surely everyone needs all the inspiration and edification they can get?
Surely you're not saying that they're less valuable than (insert your current pet hate but widely circulated Christian book here)?
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
For example, the Articles of the Church of England (following 4th century writers such as Rufinus) distinguish between canonical books (inspired and normative for faith) and ecclesiastical books (which though still inspired and edifying are not considered normative).
Allen:
Could you elaborate on the concept of "normative" in this context? I've always been fascinated by the extra-canonical writings. I am familiar with the Apocrypha and also have read some of the Gnostic gospels.
I am not familiar with CofE but I would like to know more about the Articles in relation to this subject. Are they available online? (off to Google I go)
Thanks,
Willy
John, I hve no idea why these books aren't read more widely. Has anyone ever come across these books being used in church on a regular basis?
Alan
PS don't worry about the name mangling thing - it sometimes staggers me the number of variations of my name people use.
Much NT scholarship seems to be concentrating a lot on Esdras, Maccabbess (all 4 of them !) and the contemporaneous "apocalyptic" literature in order to better understand the cultural ideas around in Jesus' time.
quote:
Originally posted by John Collins:
I have to say that for me the bible is so full of gratituous and bizarre contradictions and absurdities that I don't see how anyone can think any of it is inspired.
It's not hard if you are used to it!
Actually, it amazes me too. If Adam and Eve were the only people on earth, how did their son Cain come up with a wife? It is true that there are numerous contradictions.
One point, however, is that the Bible claims over and over again to be the inspired Word of God - to be the voice of Jehovah Himself. "Thus saith the Lord" it says on numerous occasions.
Other books don't tend to do that. Maybe this fact alone has browbeaten millions into believing it.
To me it seems obvious that the Bible is a collection of highly symbolic books, loosely grouped around the history of ancient Israel. In symbolic writings, which are common to all ancient cultures, contradictions in the story don't especially matter. The important thing is the message, and the repeated themes of the stories contain the keys to unraveling the bizarre, gratuitous and contradictory elements that you find.
The repetitive themes of the Bible are that people should love and obey God, love one another, be merciful and just, and that if this happens all will be well. If you interpret all the rest of it in the light of these central ideas it comes out pretty well, I think.
What I like best about this is that these are exceedingly nice themes. They ring true with me. It seems to me that this is the kind of thing that would come from God.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
It's not hard if you are used to it!What I like best about this is that these are exceedingly nice themes. They ring true with me. It seems to me that this is the kind of thing that would come from God.
I suppose I was used to it but I became un-used to it.
As to whether the themes are nice or ring true etc they have to me matters of opinion.
I heartily agree with both Alan and John that Christians would do well to broaden their reading, including this Christian. God certainly uses and, I think, in a way inspires writings beyond the Bible. I know Desiring God by John Piper had quite an effect on my life last year.
mark
quote:
I have no idea why these books aren't read more widely. Has anyone ever come across these books being used in church on a regular basis?
By coincidence today I was reading J. W. Rogerson's brilliantly readable and informative Penguin book An Introduction to the Bible where he says:
quote:
The British and Foreign Bible Society took the decision early in 1827 not to include the Apocrypha in its Bibles. The result was that the Apocrypha has become virtually unknown even to Anglicans ... in spite of the fact that Article VI ... recommends it ...
It comes as a surprise to devotees of the ... King James version to discover that this was usually published with the Apocrypha [included in it] until the 19th century.
He implies that the decision was for doctrinal reasons.
Rogerson has much of interest to say on the composition of the bible, various versions, how the books came to be written, and more all in 200 or so pages.
Glenn
quote:
Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
He implies that the decision was for doctrinal reasons.
I think the main one is that the apocrypha by and large do not deal with God or any religious subjects. They are simply very old stories that are associated historically with those of the Bible.
I personally have not found them all that edifying. Which is not to say that it isn't interesting to read stories that have been preserved intact for two thousand years or longer.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
the apocrypha by and large do not deal with God or any religious subjects. They are simply very old stories that are associated historically with those of the Bible.
Er, they're a collection of Jewish writings from the C2 BCE to C1 CE - by their very nature they talk about God and "religious subject". 1, 2 & 3 Maccabees are an attempt to show God's covenant work being renewed in the conflicts of this period, whilst 4 Macc, Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom of Solomon are a development of Jewish thought in its Wisdom tradition. Tobit, Susanna and Judith are as much about God and "religious subjects" as Daniel and Esther are.
You're not reading something by mistake, are you Freddy?
They do talk about God and religious subjects. I had read somewhere that this was the basis for their exclusion from the canon, but looking more closely I see that this is not the case.
Thanks for the correction.
quote:Yes, of course, which is why we still study the bible and how to interpret it.
Originally posted by Lazarus:
Much oft-quoted scripture has been wrongly divided or wrongly interpreted.
quote:That's why its good that there are so many translations so one particular set of translators can;t get away with their own prejudices or biases. Someone else will come along & correct them.
To compound this error, some scripture has been wrongly translated or the tranlsation has been compromised by the translators under preconcevied notions of what the "real" translation is supposed to be so they have modified accordingly.
quote:Deliberatly? BY who? And how could we tell?
Even worse, some "original" manuscripts that are the basis for translation have also been corrupted (me thinks deliberately) - a word or phrase here and there, subtley altering the meaning.
quote:Which corrupt church would that be?
Some other books were a part of scripture but have been systematically removed by a corrupt church who couldn't handle the truth of these books and so supressed them.
quote:It's Jesus that makes the Bible special. As Jesus is both God and man, God incarnate, God with us, the eternal creator, all that we can ever know of God comes through him. We can no more learn about God from ourt own efforts than a character in a story can do an experiment on the author (unless the author writes it that way of course). All that can be known of God comes from revelation, Jesus is God's self-revelation to us, the scriptures are a written witness to that revelation and that is why they are important.
And which corrupt church would that be?
Could such small-minded people handle that idea that in the coming end time revival that [u]new scripture will be written[/u]?
quote:We are humans who live in community, and no act of mercy - however seemingly small - is insignificant. Would not Jesus say the same thing?
Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers in their generations. The Lord apportioned to them great glory, his majesty from the beginning. There were those who ruled in their kingdoms, and were men renowned for their power, giving counsel by their understanding, and proclaiming prophecies; leaders of the people in their deliberations and in understanding of learning for the people, wise in their words of instruction; those who composed musical tunes, and set forth verses in writing; rich men furnished with resources, living peaceably in their habitations - all these were honored in their generations, and were the glory of their times. There are some of them who have left a name, so that men declare their praise.
And there are some who have no memorial, who have perished as though they had not lived; they have become as though they had not been born, and so have their children after them. But these were men of mercy, whose righteous deeds have not been forgotten. Their posterity will continue for ever, and their glory will not be blotted out. Their bodies were buried in peace, and their name lives to all generations.
--Ecclesiasticus 44:1-10, 13-14
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
2 Timothy 3:16 says that all scripture is God-breathed.
1 Corinithians 7:10 and 7:12 have Paul interjecting within his own comments to say that it is "I, not the Lord" that is responsible for this advice. Then in verse 25 he says "I have no command from the Lord, but I give my judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy."
Must we interpret God-breathed as simply some vague notion of inspiration that could be as little as to say that Paul's life was inspired overall, thus anything he thought or said would have been "God-breathed," or is there another way to reconcile these two passages?
-Digory
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
When Paul talks of Scripture, he means the Old Testament.
Paul was writing letters of advice, most probably in response to letters he received asking for that advice. He was not writing anything he thought would have such a long life as it has, he was simply writing for specific churches in specific circumstances.
In Timothy, Paul is talking about Scripture - the Old Testament. In Corinthians he is writing advice to the church there. Paul could not possible have foreseen that we would view his writings as Scripture as well, each passage you quote is talking about two different things. Therefore trying to reconcile them is completely unnecessary.
quote:
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
It seems unlikely that what Paul meant by "scripture" was what we now hold in our hands as the Old Testament. Certainly it would have included the Law and the Prophets. The Jewish canonicity of other books in Paul's time seems to have been subject to revision.
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I'm not disagreeing with what PhilA and Hamn'Eggs are saying, but it does seem to me that at some point the Church decided that these epistles (and I don't happen to think II Timothy is Pauline, so I don't see this as a contradiction within a single author, but that's by-the-by) were part of its Scripture, and the Church had to have certain criteria in order to do that.
For me a lot turns on what the word for "inspired" or "God-breathed" (or - since this is Greek, even god-breathed"!
So
1) Has there been a Kerygmania thread on this recently (I suspect the answer is "Yes!"
and
2) Would it be worth having a parallel one to this one in Kerygmania, or would that just be plain confusing?
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
quote:I have a couple of question to ask, even though Kerygmania came immediately into my head too.
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I'm not disagreeing with what PhilA and Hamn'Eggs are saying, but it does seem to me that at some point the Church decided that these epistles (and I don't happen to think II Timothy is Pauline, so I don't see this as a contradiction within a single author, but that's by-the-by) were part of its Scripture, and the Church had to have certain criteria in order to do that.
What particular reasons do you have for not thinking that Paul wrote II Timothy?
Who do you think may have written it?
I hope that is not derailing the original OP....
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Just in case it is a derailment, maybe we'd better start a Kerygmania thread on I and II Tim and Titus and who wrote them. As for a Kerygmania thread on the actual word translated "God-breathed" - same there.
But for the record, the Greek is very unlike Paul's in terms of constructions and grammar, and there are big problems with the vocabulary. Also the theology is very different, and I think that there's a huge amount of internal evidence of development, especially of ecclesiology, that puts the Pastorals a long time after Paul. There's also the problem of fitting them into the scheme of Paul's ministry as reconstructed from elsewhere.
That said, I'm perfectly clear that they are Scripture, and I'm not suggesting that we should pay no attention to them - just that they need to be read with discretion.
quote:The Hebrew Scripture is divided as follows: The Torah,(Law) Nebi'im,Prophets, former and later) and Kethubim (writings). These consist of 24 books, which by different divisions are classed as the 39 books of the Old Testament in the AV.
Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
It seems unlikely that what Paul meant by "scripture" was what we now hold in our hands as the Old Testament. Certainly it would have included the Law and the Prophets. The Jewish canonicity of other books in Paul's time seems to have been subject to revision.
)
quote:Which some would call having one's cake and eating it.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think on the whole I'm happy with the view that scripture has both a divine and a human element to it. The obsession with it being non-erroneous is because folks are searching for an infallible objective touchstone for life and hope to find it in words. I find Jesus' injuction "Follow me" both a lot easier to understand and a lot more challenging to put into practice. And my answer to the question "How do you know it was Jesus who said that (in view of your critical view of the text)?" I tend to say "Dont be silly! Of course I accept scripture as authoritative and inspired - and available for instruction, reproof and correction. I'm an evangelical. Just dont expect me to take out either my brains or my heart while I'm working out what that means"
quote:Possibly.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, some would say that it's an entirely sensible and reasonable approach to Scripture, with centuries of examples of solid evangelical theologians and teachers (not to forget ordinary Joes in the pews) who took just such an approach.
quote:Well, as I didn't say that, and I don't think Barnabas62 said it either, the whole chain of your questioning of the reasonableness of the argument falls at the first hurdle.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Although the reasonableness of...
A:"I don't believe the whole Bible is true"
quote:I think it is quite necessary to question parts of the Bible, as a Christian.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Possibly.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, some would say that it's an entirely sensible and reasonable approach to Scripture, with centuries of examples of solid evangelical theologians and teachers (not to forget ordinary Joes in the pews) who took just such an approach.
Although the reasonableness of...
A:"I don't believe the whole Bible is true"
B:"How do you know this bit is true then"
A:"Oh, it's because I believe that bit"
...escapes me.
quote:The church isn't perfect as an institution. People aren't perfect. Yet God being God, He brought both into being His way. Our destiny (Romans 12v1) is to be transformed into Jesus likeness, not conformed.
Originally posted by Custard.:
I'm heading away from claiming to subscribe to the inerrancy of Scripture, for the simple reason that it is so difficult to pin down what it means in such a way that it does justice to the genre, etc.
Instead, I'm now going for the perfection of scripture, which is a much more Biblical concept. It also links neatly into other theology - the Bible is (a record of) God's self-revelation, for his people. God being God, it is therefore to be expected that the Bible is the best that it could possibly be. In other words, any changes to the Bible (as originally given) would make it less good as a (record of the) revelation of God.
And yes, that does imply something not entirely dissimilar to inerrancy.
quote:Perfect for what purpose? We are not morally perfect, far from perfect in holiness, power or knowledge, but I think that makes us even better for the purpose of revealing God's glory by being recipients of grace.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The church isn't perfect as an institution. People aren't perfect. Yet God being God, He brought both into being His way.
quote:Completely agreed.
Let us say you are right. Then that perfect bible tells you you understand it imperfectly now (1 Corinthians 13 v 12)/
quote:Hence my parentheses above.
The snag with your argument is you move from the idea of a perfect bible to a whole lot of assumptions as to how it is to be both conserved and read. And the assumptions are actually the problem. What God reveals, primarily, is Himself, not infallible information about Himself. And so His revelation takes a number of forms. What makes Christians special is our belief that he has revealed Himself through Jesus (e.g Hebrews 1 v 1-3). Jesus himself is the real revelation
quote:Great verses.
- and as John 21 v 25 puts it. "Jesus did many other things as well".
quote:True. Hence part of the reason why the Bible is not just propositional, but also poetic and experiential. The Bible is not an end in itself, it is a means by which to know Jesus. And, as books go, it is perfect.
I have spent some forty years loving and getting to know my wife - and some 30 years loving and getting to know Jesus. All I can reasonably say in both cases is that I now know both better and love them more. Their revelation to me of their love for me has always been much more than words.
quote:OK. I found lots of common ground in the rest of your posting and I dont want to make a big thing of remaining differences. In the above quote I like "a means" rather than "the means". It is interesting that the much respected conservative evangelical scholar F F Bruce preferred to see the Bible as "true" rather than "inerrant" (quote from an interview shortly before his death). And I suspect he might also have echoed Alan Cresswell's posting re perfection. My continuing perspective is that, if perfect, it is a very strange form of perfection! But God's thoughts are not my thoughts. Thanks for yours.
Originally posted by Custard.:
The Bible is not an end in itself, it is a means by which to know Jesus. And, as books go, it is perfect.
quote:If it were perfect, you'd think that everybody who read it became a Christian, but this is not the case. In what way, then, is it perfect -- either as a book, or as a means by which to know Jesus?
Originally posted by Custard.:
The Bible is not an end in itself, it is a means by which to know Jesus. And, as books go, it is perfect.
quote:I think the issue might not be the perfection of scripture, but the imperfection of our understanding. Hence, people can read it and have differing responses.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:If it were perfect, you'd think that everybody who read it became a Christian, but this is not the case. In what way, then, is it perfect -- either as a book, or as a means by which to know Jesus?
Originally posted by Custard.:
The Bible is not an end in itself, it is a means by which to know Jesus. And, as books go, it is perfect.
quote:Surely a perfect scripture written by a perfect God would take its audience into account?
Originally posted by Matrix:
I think the issue might not be the perfection of scripture, but the imperfection of our understanding. Hence, people can read it and have differing responses.
quote:Never mind Scripture, Mousethief, we had the perfect Logos of God ministering, doing healing, teaching, etc and He was killed.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Surely a perfect scripture written by a perfect God would take its audience into account?
Originally posted by Matrix:
I think the issue might not be the perfection of scripture, but the imperfection of our understanding. Hence, people can read it and have differing responses.
quote:Of course that was the Plan....
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Never mind Scripture, Mousethief, we had the perfect Logos of God ministering, doing healing, teaching, etc and He was killed.
quote:And there it is! For some twenty years I have been observing/participating in these debates and the central issue always turns out ot be the same.
Originally posted by Custard.:
I don't think it is, since the primary purpose of scripture is the purpose God has for it. It is not us using scripture for our purposes; it is God using scripture for his.
We aim to sit under the authority of the Bible, not over it.
quote:This makes sense, but I see a fallacy in it too.
Originally posted by Custard.:
I don't think it is, since the primary purpose of scripture is the purpose God has for it. It is not us using scripture for our purposes; it is God using scripture for his.
We aim to sit under the authority of the Bible, not over it.
quote:It was also part of the Plan that Christians would suffer also, and still is.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Of course that was the Plan....
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Never mind Scripture, Mousethief, we had the perfect Logos of God ministering, doing healing, teaching, etc and He was killed.
quote:Who says it is part of the plan? you're reading a different script from many other Christians.
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
quote:It was also part of the Plan that Christians would suffer also, and still is.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Of course that was the Plan....
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
Never mind Scripture, Mousethief, we had the perfect Logos of God ministering, doing healing, teaching, etc and He was killed.
Christians
quote:I think Somebody once said, "if you would follow me, TAKE UP YOUR CROSS DAILY...."
Originally posted by Matrix:
quote:Who says it is part of the plan? you're reading a different script from many other Christians.
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
It was also part of the Plan that Christians would suffer also, and still is.
quote:A thought from someone whose "been there and done that". I think it all boils down to two basic options.
Originally posted by ChristinaMarie:
quote:This makes sense, but I see a fallacy in it too. ......
Originally posted by Custard.:
I don't think it is, since the primary purpose of scripture is the purpose God has for it. It is not us using scripture for our purposes; it is God using scripture for his.
We aim to sit under the authority of the Bible, not over it.
Something else is needed other than an agreement that Scripture is infallible or perfect, for indeed, should I decide that Scripture is perfect, I may well end up believing my interpretation is perfect and that others are wrong (to bolster the Scripture is perfect view)
I think the answer lies in what the Early Church believed.
Christina
quote:I think you'll find that not all agree that the "structural options" are exhausted yet.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
After the exhaustion of the structural options, it really is all we have left.
quote:I agree - I think after a while, though, I get to feel like this about their single-minded pursuit.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:I think you'll find that not all agree that the "structural options" are exhausted yet.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
After the exhaustion of the structural options, it really is all we have left.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Clearly you don't have much experience of Orthodox Christians.
quote:True. Is it good to be multiply-minded? I mean, how do you know which you is you? Only asking.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Single-minded?
quote:I seem to have totally lost the trail here. What is being discussed right now?
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Lookee here!!!
quote:Sorry - my posting was oblique and ironic! I'm glad for your implied confirmation that Orthodoxy is broad and encompasses much more than a single minded view of anything. Including the truth of scripture and its relationship to the authority and responsibility of the church. I haven't quite got your knack with short postings.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I don't understand what you're asking.
quote:I have to disagree with you here, the disciples in no way become "God-breathed" by this occurence - they become breathed on by God, but that's a very different thing from being breathed out by God.
My second point is a bit of biblical argumentation. Much has been made of the link between "God-breathed" (a reasonable textual interpretation) and "infallible", a classic conservative evangelical tenet and also an unjustifiable assumption. Here is an argument which occurred to me recently. In John's Gospel, the resurrected Jesus breathes on the disciples and gifts them with the Holy Spirit. So, in effect, the disciples also become "God-breathed". Did this make them infallible? Clearly the answer to this is "no".
quote:I think that the thrust of the passage is that God is the initiator - he's the one from whom scripture comes, I find John Piper's arguments at http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/84/022684.html quite interesting, he ties it in with the passage on Prophecy in 2 Peter.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, does "God breathed" mean "breathed out but God" or "breathed into by God"? The first is heading towards direct verbal inspirations (which, at the rarely held extreme, has the authors as merely human type writers). The second is more akin to the Genesis account where God breathes into the man made of mud to give him life. I'm often attracted to the second view as it makes Scripture fully the work of men and yet God somehow has given it life.
quote:I don't understand what you are saying then Alan. That God initiated the words, allowed them to be written and then breathed life onto them?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've got no problem with God initiating prophecy or the writing of Scripture.
quote:OK, I guess I have less of a problem with this, I see it as being to do with the indwelling of the holy spirit within the minds of the writers and his' ensuring that what he wanted written was written (although I don't go for the word by word dictation idea). He carried the process through rather than just initiating it - he was there at every stage.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've got no problem with God initiating prophecy or the writing of Scripture. After all, in my analogy to the creation of Adam it's God who forms the man out of the dust and breathes into him. I am uncomfortable with the idea of God putting the actual words, or even just ideas, into the brains of the writers. I see it as a far more subtle process than that. Could it be that God inititiated Paul writing his letters by allowing others to mislead the churches to the point where Paul needed to write? Could it be that God worked through people in conversation to convince Luke that it would be a good idea to form an orderly account of the life of Christ?
quote:This, minus the implication that people just arbitrarily "pick and choose" is the crux of a question I am struggling with. All I know about reading the Bible is ways I don't want to do it: randomly turning to a page and force-fitting what I read there to fit my experience, selectively explaining away a passage I don't like, selectively using a passage to condemn behaviour I don't like, expecting modern science and mind-control revelations.
Originally posted by Dubitante:
The big question is, how do I decide which bits apply to me and which do not?
. . .
So just how do I decide which is right and which is 'wrong'? If any of it is true, which bits are and how can you tell?
quote:I can certainly relate to what you say here. Let me offer some rather fuzzy points that have been useful to me. First, I fully share your basic view: the Bible is, in some way that is not true of literature generally, the inspired Word of God, while at the same time, it is sufficiently foreign to us that we need a lot of help just to understand its surface meaning. I would add that, further, the deep sense was not even evident to people in Palestine two millenia ago. So the divine Word of God will take a lot of work on our part to hear.
Originally posted by samara:
I am firmly convinced that the Bible is not magically exempt from the "problems" that affect all human communication, and especially cross-culture literature...I also am fairly convinced that the Bible is the Word of God, inspired, and/or God-breathed, or however you would like to put it.
How then, do I study it? Taking a brilliant Science & Religion class reclaimed the Bible from the literalists for me... And I do hestitate to draw conclusions from what I read, being mostly overwhelmed by my ignorance.
quote:To clarify: I do have a higher regard for Scripture than I do for Bede. The point is, though, that assuming a "worst case scenario" where the Bible is just another example of human literature, we still have procedures for extracting truth from fallible documents that amount to more than just "pick and mix".
quote:
Originally posted by Dubitante:
My firmly held belief is that you either accept all of it or none of it.
quote:Ricardus, I appreciated you raising this point on the other thread, and wish more of the discussion could move here as I am learning much from what everyone has to say (the last page of the inerrancy thread here in Dead Horses has some brilliant stuff from Psyduck, too). Reacting against a literalist interpretation myself (focussed on Genesis) I am trying to recover a sense of how to approach God through the Bible. tclune and Barnabas62's points about community and the act of the Spirit are good reminders that I don't need to reduce it to "just" a literary study.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I used to be a very literalist, 6-day creationist fundie. This is an issue I do struggle with, because I'm rather afraid of swinging unreasonably far the other way in reaction to my fundie days.
. . .
The point is, though, that assuming a "worst case scenario" where the Bible is just another example of human literature, we still have procedures for extracting truth from fallible documents that amount to more than just "pick and mix".
quote:Let me recommend a book that I am still struggling with that is blowing me away -- The Scapegoat, by Rene Girard. He starts by discussing a middle-ages account of the persecution of a Jewish community, through the eyes of one of the persecuters. He discusses all that we can know with certainty about what happened and why -- which is not identical to what the author says happened, but we can be sure of what was going on anyway.
Originally posted by samara:
How do you read the Bible? Do you have resources that aid in the literary study? Do you find yourself still able to approach it to experience God, to look for instruction, or do you critique it in a dryer way? (I don't think there's anything wrong with approaching it in from a solely literary stand point - sometimes that's all we can do. And if God cares for us to see it differently, surely He will help.)
I'm looking for clues. I've gone from being a "read your Bible pray every day" person to not being able to open it for shear frustration.
quote:I don't know. I think most of the "history" in the OT is myth or legend, but where the literalists go wrong is in assuming that myth is automatically a bad thing. It's just the dominant form of literature in OT times - but not living in OT times, I'm not sure how to read it.
Originally posted by samara:
How do you read the Bible? Do you have resources that aid in the literary study? Do you find yourself still able to approach it to experience God, to look for instruction, or do you critique it in a dryer way?
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
! Chopping prostitutes into twelve pieces!", so we can look at how other Christians through history have dealt with problems like this. The Church Fathers seem to have been very allegorical in the way they read the Bible - IIRC the description of the temple in Ezekiel is seen as symbolic of the Virgin Mary.quote:Samara, this is a good question.
Originally posted by samara:
I'm looking for clues. I've gone from being a "read your Bible pray every day" person to not being able to open it for shear frustration. "The prostitute was cut into 12 pieces, each sent to the 12 tribes. From this we are supposed to learn to . . . be hospitable?!? Or that His eye is on the sparrow?" (Thinking of a teen Bible commentary I had ages ago)
quote:And wonder what to make of them. There are no easy answers.
Psalm 101:6 My eyes shall be on the faithful of the land, That they may dwell with me; He who walks in a perfect way, He shall serve me.
Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.
Hosea 2:19 “ I will betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me In righteousness and justice, In lovingkindness and mercy;
John 14:23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
quote:I agree with that sentiment. I take the gospels to be the infallible Word of God. I take the epistles to be the mostly correct thoughts and teachings of the early church. Christianity does not have two founders.
Originally posted by The Crab:
Why then, do so many believers quote Jesus and Paul, often in the same breath, as though implying Christianity had TWO infallible founders?
quote:I am visiting this thread for the first time, and with so many takers since it was begun, I cannot read through all of it.
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
2Timothy 3:16 Says All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,for reproof,for correction,for training in righteousness.
2Peter1:20 But know this first of all,that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation.
21.for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
I do not see that we have authority to just pick out those sections that we like,and reject the parts that we may dislike.
What think Ye?
All the best Jim
quote:I think that sensible fundamentalists and literalists understand all that. But there are too many who don't.
Originally posted by The Crab:
For example, the words of Job's comforters are indeed in Scripture, yet God Himself rebukes them. Yet I have heard Christians quote their words as "promises of God." .
quote:if the authority of scripture depends on the church then the church must be infallible or our faith in the scriptures would be less than certain
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:I am visiting this thread for the first time, and with so many takers since it was begun, I cannot read through all of it.
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
2Timothy 3:16 Says All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,for reproof,for correction,for training in righteousness.
2Peter1:20 But know this first of all,that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation.
21.for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
I do not see that we have authority to just pick out those sections that we like,and reject the parts that we may dislike.
What think Ye?
All the best Jim
Yes, all Scripture is divinely inspired, but not all divinely inspired scripture is literal truth. A right understand of the three-fold "cord" of Scripture, Tradition and Reason should put things into their right perspective.
quote:At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:if the authority of scripture depends on the church then the church must be infallible or our faith in the scriptures would be less than certain
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:I am visiting this thread for the first time, and with so many takers since it was begun, I cannot read through all of it.
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
2Timothy 3:16 Says All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,for reproof,for correction,for training in righteousness.
2Peter1:20 But know this first of all,that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation.
21.for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
I do not see that we have authority to just pick out those sections that we like,and reject the parts that we may dislike.
What think Ye?
All the best Jim
Yes, all Scripture is divinely inspired, but not all divinely inspired scripture is literal truth. A right understand of the three-fold "cord" of Scripture, Tradition and Reason should put things into their right perspective.
but the church in itself without the scriptures is not infallible , Crusades Pogroms Inquisitions etc - that is shown throughout history and hence scripture stands alone as infallible
quote:Why the need for certainities? Surely faith is all about uncertainty but trust.
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:if the authority of scripture depends on the church then the church must be infallible or our faith in the scriptures would be less than certain
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:I am visiting this thread for the first time, and with so many takers since it was begun, I cannot read through all of it.
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
2Timothy 3:16 Says All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,for reproof,for correction,for training in righteousness.
2Peter1:20 But know this first of all,that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation.
21.for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
I do not see that we have authority to just pick out those sections that we like,and reject the parts that we may dislike.
What think Ye?
All the best Jim
Yes, all Scripture is divinely inspired, but not all divinely inspired scripture is literal truth. A right understand of the three-fold "cord" of Scripture, Tradition and Reason should put things into their right perspective.
but the church in itself without the scriptures is not infallible , Crusades Pogroms Inquisitions etc - that is shown throughout history and hence scripture stands alone as infallible
quote:The bible says that we have a sure hope, on what authority can we base it on - the best is God's own word.
Originally posted by leo:
Why the need for certainities? Surely faith is all about uncertainty but trust.
quote:I suppose what I am trying to highlight is that it is my belief God's word is not subservient to the church and tradition but it should be the other way given how the church has behaved over the years - ie operating with a flagrant disregard to the Bible.
by Cusanus
At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
quote:So what made the church's discernment of what was scripture infallible, when nothing else it did is? Taking into account that it was only in the 16th century that the discernment process about scripture was complete (I'm assuming that you come from a background that does not give authority to the Apochryphal books).
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:The bible says that we have a sure hope, on what authority can we base it on - the best is God's own word.
Originally posted by leo:
Why the need for certainities? Surely faith is all about uncertainty but trust.
quote:I suppose what I am trying to highlight is that it is my belief God's word is not subservient to the church and tradition but it should be the other way given how the church has behaved over the years - ie operating with a flagrant disregard to the Bible.
by Cusanus
At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
quote:No - it's based on a relationship. Relationships move tentatively.
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:The bible says that we have a sure hope, on what authority can we base it on - the best is God's own word.
Originally posted by leo:
Why the need for certainities? Surely faith is all about uncertainty but trust.
quote:I suppose what I am trying to highlight is that it is my belief God's word is not subservient to the church and tradition but it should be the other way given how the church has behaved over the years - ie operating with a flagrant disregard to the Bible.
by Cusanus
At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
quote:Let me reverse the question
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:So what made the church's discernment of what was scripture infallible, when nothing else it did is? Taking into account that it was only in the 16th century that the discernment process about scripture was complete (I'm assuming that you come from a background that does not give authority to the Apochryphal books).
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:The bible says that we have a sure hope, on what authority can we base it on - the best is God's own word.
Originally posted by leo:
Why the need for certainities? Surely faith is all about uncertainty but trust.
quote:I suppose what I am trying to highlight is that it is my belief God's word is not subservient to the church and tradition but it should be the other way given how the church has behaved over the years - ie operating with a flagrant disregard to the Bible.
by Cusanus
At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
[eta: and just for the record, "God's word" is a loaded term around here -- many of us think if refers to Jesus, the Christ, not to a bunch of writings about him. No one disputes that he's infallible, even if we doubt the literal infallibility of some of the bits of the Bible]
John
quote:I'd rather you give me an answer to my perfectly sincere question.
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:Let me reverse the question
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:So what made the church's discernment of what was scripture infallible, when nothing else it did is? Taking into account that it was only in the 16th century that the discernment process about scripture was complete (I'm assuming that you come from a background that does not give authority to the Apochryphal books).
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:The bible says that we have a sure hope, on what authority can we base it on - the best is God's own word.
Originally posted by leo:
Why the need for certainities? Surely faith is all about uncertainty but trust.
quote:I suppose what I am trying to highlight is that it is my belief God's word is not subservient to the church and tradition but it should be the other way given how the church has behaved over the years - ie operating with a flagrant disregard to the Bible.
by Cusanus
At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
[eta: and just for the record, "God's word" is a loaded term around here -- many of us think if refers to Jesus, the Christ, not to a bunch of writings about him. No one disputes that he's infallible, even if we doubt the literal infallibility of some of the bits of the Bible]
John
would the church be infallible without the scriptures?
Also as you have pointed out Christ is the Word - in part the summation and the crux of what the bible is all about - was His infallibility based on the churches?
quote:initially I would point out the OT was selected by the church in the OT ie the Jews - they excluded the Apochrypha for example because of the inaccuracies and contradictions with God's inspired word but basically all scripture is God's.
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:I'd rather you give me an answer to my perfectly sincere question.
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:Let me reverse the question
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:So what made the church's discernment of what was scripture infallible, when nothing else it did is? Taking into account that it was only in the 16th century that the discernment process about scripture was complete (I'm assuming that you come from a background that does not give authority to the Apochryphal books).
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:The bible says that we have a sure hope, on what authority can we base it on - the best is God's own word.
Originally posted by leo:
Why the need for certainities? Surely faith is all about uncertainty but trust.
quote:I suppose what I am trying to highlight is that it is my belief God's word is not subservient to the church and tradition but it should be the other way given how the church has behaved over the years - ie operating with a flagrant disregard to the Bible.
by Cusanus
At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
[eta: and just for the record, "God's word" is a loaded term around here -- many of us think if refers to Jesus, the Christ, not to a bunch of writings about him. No one disputes that he's infallible, even if we doubt the literal infallibility of some of the bits of the Bible]
John
would the church be infallible without the scriptures?
Also as you have pointed out Christ is the Word - in part the summation and the crux of what the bible is all about - was His infallibility based on the churches?
But as you ask -- Christ's infallibility came from the Father. It tends to be a characteristic of being God. It would be true if there were no scriptures and if there were no church. The church recognizes it, in the same way it discerns what is and what is not scripture, but that recognition/discernment isn't what it's based on and certainly doesn't create it.
Now, back to my question...
John
quote:No. "The Jews" did not exclude the apochrypha -- it was part of the scriptures when Jesus walked on the earth and excluded long after his resurrection and ascension. There was already a christian church functioning, teaching (using aprochrypha) and witnessing before the exclusion by the rabbis. I rather thought the authority had passed from Judaism to the church as the body of christ at the time of Pentecost -- well before that happened. If we want to be faithful to Jesus and what he knew as scripture, it's in. And it was accepted by all christians as in until the time of Luther -- and still is accepted as in by the large majority of CHristians. Was Luther infallible in excluding it? Because if he was, a lot of Christians haven't heard about that.
Originally posted by Dobbo:
initially I would point out the OT was selected by the church in the OT ie the Jews - they excluded the Apochrypha for example because of the inaccuracies and contradictions with God's inspired word but basically all scripture is God's.
With respect to the the authority of the bible
it is with God not the church - or do you not accept that? Is it the inspired word of God or the church?
quote:I think the church of the Old Testament ie the Jews who were around a lot earlier than "the church" excluded the Apochrypha and still do. Probably because they knew some of the blatant errors such as the Book of Judith where even RCs accept problems with its accuracy regarding history not exactly God breathed see historicity.
Originally posted by leo:
Who excluded the apocrypha. RCs and Orthodox treat it as scripture. Anglicans include it in the lectionary as sort of 2nd class edification.
quote:That's not true. The apocryphal books were not in the Scriptures used in the synagogues in Jesus's time.
Originally posted by John Holding:
No. "The Jews" did not exclude the apochrypha -- it was part of the scriptures when Jesus walked on the earth and excluded long after his resurrection and ascension. There was already a christian church functioning, teaching (using aprochrypha) and witnessing before the exclusion by the rabbis.
quote:Does not even look that a writer himself believed he was writing inspired words
Originally posted by leo:
Not true that the Jews excluded the apocrypha.
Different communities had different scriptures (as did the early Christians). The synagogue service, as now, had a portion from the Torah and then a prohetic writing (Nevi'im). You may as well argue that they excluded the Wisdom literature too, on that basis.
The Maccabees were certainly included because the story forms the rationale for the lsser festival of Hannukah.
They did not form a 'canon' until a council (of Jamnia?) round about the time that the Christians formed a canon.
quote:2 Maccabees 15 v38
[38] If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do.
quote:
[45] And when the forty days were ended, the Most High spoke to me, saying, "Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them;
quote:As I have highlighted above not all the churches that hold to the apocryha are in agreement still re 2 Esdras
you still haven't answered mine about why the church was infallible in discerning scripture but not before or after
quote:John 16 v 13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.
quote:and historical inaccuracies do not reflect on whether it is inspired or not?
Originally posted by leo:
And Luke thought he was doing a better job than the others - that dosn't mean Matthew and Mark weren't inspired.
quote:2 Maccabees 12 43 - 45
But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
quote:But surely a book that suggests you can buy salvation is contrary to what Jesus taught and therefore its authority is suspect.
Originally posted by leo:
There are loads of historical innacuracies and contradictions in the books that made it into the canon, including words placed on Jesus's own lips.
newborn back to the village from which you came (and all its finger-counting grandmas). If Joseph wished to spare his family the gossip, there was no better way than by staying out of town long enough that no one could pinpoint the birthdate with any accuracy.quote:Leo
Originally posted by leo:
This is really a kerygmania issue but:
Jesus made mistakes – or the gospel writers did
Mk. 2;25—26 Jesus says .Abiathar was high priest when David told soldiers to eat temple bread; I Sam 21;l—6 states that it was Ahimelech. Mt. 12 and Lk. 6 tell the same story but omit the name — they maybe realised Mark had got it wrong.
Mt. 23;35 Zechariah was son of Barachiah according to Jesus; II Chron 24;20—2l he was son of Jehoiada. (Another Zechariah was the son of Berechiah — Zech 1;l but this is not the ne who Jesus referred to as being murdered in the sanctuary.
Mark l;l—3 quotes Isaiah — but the quotation actually comes from Mal 3;l and Ex 23:20
Matthew 2:6 'But you, Bethlehem, [in] the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah This is ostensibly quoting Micah 5.2, which says the opposite: Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, [Though] you are little among the thousands of Judah,
God changes his mind?
Gen 2;17 In the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’ (The’surely’ in Hebrew is emphatic, it is never used to refer to ‘spiritual death’) — yet Adam lives 930 years (Gen 5;5) We get a picture of God. who is not a static person but one ho responds to event modifying his plans. (Ezek. 20;13f)
Jude quotes Enoch as belonging to scripture — vi,. 5,7,9,11 & 17 — Enoch is not now regarded as part of scripture by either catholics or protestants yet it was by Jude; for him it was inspired prophecy — so there can be inspiration outside the canon.
Divergences
Gen 1:11 - on the third day God orders the earth to bring forth vegetation and other plants. He doesn't create humans until the sixth day. Reasonable conclusion from this: there was vegetations on the earth before human beings.
Gen 2:4b-7a, however, states that God made man from the dust of the earth when "no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up". In fact, the presence of the vegetation seems to be dependent on there being human beings to till the soil.
Exodus 6:3 says that God was not known by His name to Abraham, but Genesis 13:4 and 15:7 has Abraham knowing God's name.
Mt. 21 Mk.ll and Lk. 19 locate Jesus’ cleansing of the temple at the end of his ministry — either on the Sunday or the Monday before his death; John 2; 13ff. locate it at the very beginning, before he chose disciples.
In Mat. 4, Jesus is tempted to turn stones into bread; jump off temple pinnacle and worship Satan; Luke 4 reverses the order of the second and third of these.
Matthew implies that Joseph and Mary were living in Bethlehem before Jesus birth ( the magi visit them at a house (Mt 2:11)), then they go to Egypt and then set off back for Bethlehem but, being hearing that Archelaus is king of that region, go to Nazareth to set up a home there instead (see Mt 2:23). Luke, in contrast, has J & M living in Nazareth, then going to Bethlehem where Jesus is born, then to Jerusalem, then back to their home in Nazareth (with no time for a trip to egypt). They can't both be right. What we learn from these passages is how M saw the birth of Jesus as fitting in with OT prophecy. We don't have to take the passages as historically accurate.
Matthew has Jesus born under Herod the Great (i.e before 4 BC). Luke has him born when Quirinius was legate of Syria and Cilicia (i.e after 6 AD).
who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan? See 1 Sam 17:50-51; 2 Sam 21:19; and I Chron 20:5-6. Again one of these passages must be in error.
What is the reason for keeping the sabbath day? Because the Lord rested on the seventh day, according to Exodus 20:11. Because the Lord delivered the people from the land of Egypt by his outstretched arm according to Deuteronomy 5:15.
How much did David pay for the land on which he planned to build the temple? 50 shekels of silver (for which he got the land and some oxen) according to 2 Samuel 24:24 or 600 shekels of gold according to 1 Chronicles 21:25.
Did Mary and Joseph take Jesus to Egypt shortly after his birth? Yes, according to Matthew 2:14. No according to Luke 2:39.
Was Jesus crucified on Passover day or the day of preparation for Passover? Passover day according to Luke 22:13 and the other synoptics. The day of preparation according to John 18:28 and John 19:31.
Did one of the thieves believe in Jesus at the end? No according to Mark 15:32 and Matthew 27:44. Yes according to Luke 23:39-43.
What was the last thing Jesus said from the cross? "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" according to Luke 23:46 or "It is finished" according to John 19:30.
Who discovered the empty tomb? Mary Magdalen and the other Mary, according to Matthew 28:1. Mary Magdelene, Mary the Mother of James, and Salome acording to Mark 16:1. Mary Magdelene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and another unnamed woman according to Luke 24:10. Mary Magdelene (and Peter and the disciple whom Jesus loved?) according to John 20:1
"I tell you this, brethren: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. " I Cor. 15:50 vs. "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones as you see that I have." Lk 24:19
Does God change his mind…or not?
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind..." (Numbers 23:19).
"Remember not the former things, nor consider the things of old. Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it?" (Isaiah 43: 18, 19)
Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people.
1Sam.15 [11] [God says:] "I repent that I have made Saul king; for he has turned back from following me, and has not performed my commandments."
[29] [Samuel says:] "And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent." [35] And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
1Chr.21:15; And God sent the angel to Jerusalem to destroy it; but when he was about to destroy it, the LORD saw, and he repented of the evil; and he said to the destroying angel, "It is enough; now stay your hand."
Two traditions
In Ex. l5;5 the Egyptians are drowned by waves flooding over them; in Ex 14;29 the eater goes back like walls yet the chapter 15 account talks of chariot wheels being ‘clogged’ — more like the Sea of Reeds than the Red Sea (no vowels in the original text so it could be either Yam Suph or Yam Siph — the sea of reeds fits in to the geographical details of the rest of the story and this was a marsh, not a great
Exaggerations
David slew 700 chariot fighters of the Arameans, in I Chron 19;18 he slew 7,000
II Sam 24;9 Joab numbered 800,000 Israelites and 500,000 Judeans; in I Chron 21:5 it is 1,100 000 and 470,000 respectively.
Paul made mistakes
Ex. 12;40—4l The sojourn in Egypt was 430 years. For Paul, the same time covers much more time — it stretches from Abraham until the Exodus (Gal 3;17) There is 215 years between Abraham and the entry into Egypt (he was 75 on entering Canaan Gen. 12;4; 100 at Isaac’s birth — Gen 2l;5 Isaac was 60 at birth of Jacon — Gen 25;26 and Jacob was 130 when he went to Egypt Gen 47;9 — that makes 215 years — interestingly it is half of the 430 figuire — is this historical accurac or a number theme which Kabbalists play with?) Was it 430 years or 645. Did the divinely inspired inspired Paul get it wrong?
Misquotations
Heb l0;5 ‘Sacrifices and offerings...but a body hast thou prepared for me’ Cf. Ps. 40;6 ‘Sacrifices...but thou hast given me an open ear’.
Two stories?
Did Noah get animals two by two — Gen 6;21 or in pairs of sevens — Gen 7;2?
Who bought Joseph? Was it the Ishmaelites or the Midianites — there seem to be two stories edited together (badly) — the Hebrew style changes from verse to verse to suggest a clumsy assembly of texts) — thus Gen.37;27 the brothers decide to sell Jo to Ishmaelites, v. 28 Midianites take Joseph, then they sell him to Ishmaelites; but v.36 Midianities sell him (again?) in Egypt.
quote:Leaving aside any theories of inspiration - this is clearly different to the case in leo's post.
Originally posted by Dobbo:
Links to books outside the canon - the Book of Mormon contains whole chunks of the King James Version of the bible - does not mean the Mormons book is inspired - or do you believe it is?
quote:Does Jude quote the Book of Enoch - that is an interesting one
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:Leaving aside any theories of inspiration - this is clearly different to the case in leo's post.
Originally posted by Dobbo:
Links to books outside the canon - the Book of Mormon contains whole chunks of the King James Version of the bible - does not mean the Mormons book is inspired - or do you believe it is?
Case 1: Jude quotes Enoch. Jude is seen as canonical. Therefore Enoch is partially endorsed by a canonical work.
Case 2: The Book of Mormon quotes the Authorized Version. The AV is seen as canonical. Therefore we learn nothing about the BoM - the relationship is the other way around.
T.
quote:I consider your first statement a contradiction but then that is probably because I believe all scripture is God breathed in and therefore infallible. I would say that ifthe Scriptures assert their infallibility then either it is true and should be credited as such or false and rejected
by Leo
do not believe atonement can be made by payment but that does no mean that the apocrypha is not inspired. I believe scripture to be inspired but not inerrant. God had to work with the materials to hand. People's cultures and mindsets affected the way they interpreted what they thought God was saying to them. That is why God seems to be telling people to slaughter the inhabitants of entire towns in some of the more blood-thirsty bits of the Old Testament
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
me quote:with
If it is well told and to the point, that is what I myself desired; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that was the best I could do.
quote:2 Samuel 23 v 2
The Spirit of the Lord spoke through me;
his word was on my tongue.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Since you equate 'God-breathed' with 'inerrant' we have no common grounds for discussion.
Surely God works through fallible human beings, he does not ride roughshod over their free will.
quote:Sorry for the double post - it is obvious I am not inerrant.
Originally posted by leo:
Since you equate 'God-breathed' with 'inerrant' we have no common grounds for discussion.
Surely God works through fallible human beings, he does not ride roughshod over their free will.
quote:The fact that there are so many churches - in the sense of denominations - is a clear indication that Christians are far from agreement, and remain disunited about the true interpretation of and the divine inspiration of all Scripture. The day that such unity and agreement are achieved, will leave us with one church denomination, even if we allow for unity in diversity. We can argue about this all day and all night, and we will never agree on this subject. Clearly we have to agree to disagree.
Originally posted by Cusanus:
quote:At what point in either of these arguments do you escape from petitio principii (begging the question) though?
Originally posted by Dobbo:
quote:if the authority of scripture depends on the church then the church must be infallible or our faith in the scriptures would be less than certain
Originally posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop:
quote:I am visiting this thread for the first time, and with so many takers since it was begun, I cannot read through all of it.
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
2Timothy 3:16 Says All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,for reproof,for correction,for training in righteousness.
2Peter1:20 But know this first of all,that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of ones own interpretation.
21.for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
I do not see that we have authority to just pick out those sections that we like,and reject the parts that we may dislike.
What think Ye?
All the best Jim
Yes, all Scripture is divinely inspired, but not all divinely inspired scripture is literal truth. A right understand of the three-fold "cord" of Scripture, Tradition and Reason should put things into their right perspective.
but the church in itself without the scriptures is not infallible , Crusades Pogroms Inquisitions etc - that is shown throughout history and hence scripture stands alone as infallible
quote:Yes it does - their free will to misunderstand - not put very well. Try again, inerrancy seems to imply that God dictated every word to each writer - they had no space for creative interpretation. They were able to write things way beyond what their time and culture would have enabled them to write.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Um Leo, you've got a non sequitur there. Inerrancy does not mean that God rides roughshod over people's free will--or even over their individual personalities. (Besides, who really WANTS to mess up?)
, I'd jump at the chance. Particularly if it meant working in close partnership with him. I mean, who wouldn't?
quote:When I was teaching, if I did that with students doing coursework and was found out, I'd be sacked.
Another analogy, closer to the experience of writing. I consult with students and professors regarding dissertation writing. There is one student I'm working with right now where I'm basically going to be "standing over him" to make sure that he doesn't screw up for the umpteenth time. I'm not telling him what to write in terms of content or even micromanaging the details. What I AM doing is looking over his shoulder and pointing out paragraphs, sections, etc. and saying, "You know, that really isn't going to fly with your readers. Trust me on that. Why don't you try another approach?"...Will it still be 100% his own work when he gets done? You betcha. Will it be reliable and error-free? Well, yes, insofar as this humble teacher of rhetoric can make it so! Working WITH my student, not against him.
quote:How about these then:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Leo, a huge chunk of the things you're listing cannot rightfully be classed as errors at all....This is not to say that all of your issues can be dismissed so easily. Just to say that you've got a whole boatload of apparent errors that are in fact nothing of the kind, and that are likely to muddy the waters when you're trying to examine something that might really matter. My two cents. LC
quote:Now I'm REALLY confused.
Originally posted by leo:
No, even honest opinions would be regarded as cheating.
Unless, that is, you are in the process of drafting and redrafting.
quote:I'm going to do an extremely brief (for me
Originally posted by leo:
How about these then:
One God or many?
The Song of Moses Deut 32:8f ‘he established national boundaries according to the number of divine beings’
Names changed
One Saul’s sons was named Ishba’al in 2 Samuel 2:8- But Abner son of Ner, commander of Saul’s army, had taken Ishbaal son of Saul, and brought him over to Mahanaim. but an editor or the books of Samuel bas changed named ending ‘ba’al’ with the ending ‘bosheth, meaning ‘shame’ 2 Samuel 2: 15 Then there arose and went over by number twelve of Benjamin, which [pertained] to Ishbosheth the son of Saul, and twelve of the servants of David. – some translations have tried to iron these discrepancies out by changing ALL the names – you need to see the Hebrew.
Eunuchs and foreigners
In Deut 31, 1,3 Lev 22:22f they are not allowed to enter the temple. In Isaiah 56:1-8 they are.
)reply, and then appeal to a host to let me know where further Q and A of this type ought to be, as I suspect we're derailing the thread. Briefly, then:quote:I guess that I missed the part above where an inerrantist said that these were two different things. Did anyone say that?
Originally posted by anteater:
Has any inerrantist ever formulated a doctrine of scripture which applies to the Bible I can by at my local shop, as opposed to a hypothetical autograph?
quote:"Most" isn't enough for a claim of inerrancy. Inerrancy says 100% completely all-the-way nothing-left-out perfect (in all matters of blah blah blah). If even one variant impacts an area of faith or history (or whetever else is in the blah blah blah part), then the inerrancy claim is disproved. Absolutist claims are like that -- even the tiniest chink brings them toppling down.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Most variant or disputed texts are relatively minor and don't greatly impact biblical teaching.
quote:For clarity.
Originally posted by anteater:
This is a blatant attempt to float a new slant. Yes I have read a lot of this thread, but not all, and it's just possible this has been answered, in which case I'll hang my head in shame. So:
Has any inerrantist ever formulated a doctrine of scripture which applies to the Bible I can by at my local shop, as opposed to a hypothetical autograph? I've not seen one. The usual response is: Don't be so damn pedantic! However, it's interesting, and rather limiting, if the doctrine of scripture you hold to, can't be applied to any actually available book. And if it's that easy, why not have statements about actual Bibles in the Declaration of Faith, instead of statements about hypothetical ones?
quote:I confess to believing in a milder version of that idea.
Originally posted by John Holding:
There are those that believe the Authorized Version (the "St. James" version as some call it) is the inerrant text -- indeed some would claim that, by direction inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the AV translaters provided a text more accurate than the Greek texts they were translating, and than the original texts themselves. No, I'm not kidding.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:It's funny you should say that. Knowing the truth is vital...
Originally posted by KJV:
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is."
That is why it is so important to know which Bible Version is the true word of God!
WHICH VERSION OF THE BIBLE IS THE REAL WORD OF GOD? www.web address deleted
quote:It's always open to the inerrantists to say the KJV is the inspired text.
I'm not sure this is the kind of inerrant you're looking for, though.
quote:I have removed the offending link, and will refer your transgression to the appropriate Administrator.
this board is not here for you to advertise your website, or post the same blurb over and over. If you want to discuss with others, then do so. Do not post any more advertisements or I will remove your posting privileges.
quote:Member Admin Tiara On
Originally posted by KJV:
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is."
That is why it is so important to know which Bible Version is the true word of God!
WHICH VERSION OF THE BIBLE IS THE REAL WORD OF GOD? www.webaddressdeleted
See my post below...
quote:But wasn't the Vulgate based on the Hebrew as well? (Or at least a Hebrew version...)
Originally posted by ken:
For the OT you get to choose between MT and 70 - the Protestants going for MT, and thus implicitly accepting that the Spirit remained with the Jews, who are not superseded by the Church (the continuing validity of Judaism has been a common idea among Reformed churches in Europe and America - in marked contrast to Lutheran and Roman views)
quote:You mean because it is a family of texts, not a single text?
Originally posted by anteater:
Ken: So are you saying that the majority text (and I believe their is no single definitive text, but a family) is what qualifies as the inerrant word of God? I don't know. Maybe you don't believe inerrancy at all.
quote:As I find myself endlessly repeating on my other board...
Originally Posted by snuggiecute:
The words of the Bible are alive, we who read them with understanding from the Holy Spirit should believe them and obey them. The Holy Spirit will testify if they are true or not, and they are true. If someone tells you something they say is from the Bible, search for the passage, take it in context, and the Holy Spirit will give understanding.
quote:When you endlessly repeat this, it would be good to account for three things:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
As I find myself endlessly repeating on my other board...
I don't think that the bible is the "Word of God." Christ was the Word of God. The bible hadn't been put together yet, so none of the writers referred to within the bible could have had any idea of what the bible was going to be.
quote:
Mark 7.13 "...making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down."
John 10:35 "If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)"
quote:
Luke 8:11 “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God."
Luke 8:21 But He answered and said to them, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it.”
Luke 11:28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”
quote:So there is nothing inconsistent about identifying Scripture, including the New Testament, with the "word of God" and Christianity has always done this. It is certainly true that Jesus is "the Word of God" but this would not make sense unless the term already had meaning for the authors. Jesus was understood to be the fulfillment of the teachings of Scripture - and in fact the Teacher Himself of Scripture. So He was the Word made flesh.
Hosea 1:1 The word of the LORD that came to Hosea
Joel 1:1 The word of the LORD that came to Joel the son of Pethuel
Micah 4:2 For out of Zion the law shall go forth, And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
Zephaniah 1: 1 The word of the LORD which came to Zephaniah
Haggai 1:3 Then the word of the LORD came by Haggai the prophet
Zechariah 12:1 The burden of the word of the LORD against Israel. Thus says the LORD
Malachi 1:1 The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi
quote:Another possibility is to reassess the meaning.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
And some lines in the bible only make sense when you excuse them as being the misguided products of a time and place where people didn't know things that we know now. "Reading in context" in some cases means not believing and refusing to obey them.
quote:But here you have a good point. Not everyone considers the epistles to be God's word. I think of them as the early doctrine of the primitive church, which I sometimes do not believe.
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I cite 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as one example of such a line.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:You are, of course, correct. I was out of line mentioning your name at all, and I apologise.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Lay off the personal attacks.
quote:Some fairy tales have the damsel being nearly that coy.
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
It took him 2.5 years to come up with "Yes"?
quote:What think ye of the Words of Institution? Metaphor or literally true?
Originally posted by Jim Powell:
I do not see that we have authority to just pick out those sections that we like,and reject the parts that we may dislike.
What think Ye?
quote:Then do you accept the Apocrypha as scripture, as the ancient church did? Or do you reject "the parts you dislike?"
Originally posted by Alogon:
I do not see that we have authority to just pick out those sections that we like,and reject the parts that we may dislike.
What think Ye?
quote:We've been here before MT - last time round you explained to me that Protestants, RCs and Orthodox all have different categories for scripture.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then do you accept the Apocrypha as scripture, as the ancient church did? Or do you reject "the parts you dislike?"
quote:Since you mis-attributed someone else's words to me, it's impossible to know whom you were asking.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I wasn't asking you, was I?
