1
   

God -> Bible -> God

 
 
Portal Star
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 01:01 am
ye110man wrote:
See, Ruach has proved by point. Most Christians do not know. They use the arguement that the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible says so and we should believe it because it is the Word of God. That was my whole point and thank you Ruach for demonstrating it.


It's funny, I had a philosophy T.A. that said circular arguments could -only- be useful in one argument, and it was this argument. I think it was his way of coping with being a scholar and being deeply religious at the same time.

Husker: there are some good bits in there, but there are also some slow bits, and some bits I disagree with. I think Matthew is the best. Don't forget that this document has be shredded, pasted, edited (intentionally leaving things behind forever that emporers, pharos disagreed with), translated, etc. It is a good book to read, because it is the basis of a major world religion. But I wouldn't reccomend it as an exciting read - apparently you're supposed to skip all the ...and ___ begot___ who begot____ stuff.
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 02:47 am
dyslexia wrote:
or they were left out when Constantine demanded a complete set of the bibles transcribed and the Church had to put something together with much editing. When Constantine I became the ruler of Rome in 313, the Donatist controversy was raging in North Africa and Numidia. A soldier and a statesman who liked order and agreement, Constantine tried to quell it but not very successfully. Constantine was not a theologian, but he took steps during his rule to try to make Christianity less conflictual by calling the Council of Nicea to settle the Arian controversy. One result of the the council was the drafting of a version of what we now call the Nicene Creed. Ultimately creeds such as the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed were affirmed as "orthodox" -- right teaching. Those teachings not considered orthodox, such as Gnosticism, were defined as heretical.

Actually the Council of Nicea didn't create the Bible as we know it today. It would go through more changes. It did settle the Arian controversy though. 316 of the 318 bishops present accepted the Nicean Creed. The other 2 were excommunicated.
The Council of Laodicea in 363 had a different list of books. The first mention of the New Testament as we know it today is from Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria in 367. The formal recognition came at the Council of Carthage in 397. St. Augustine who was present at the Council believed that it was necessary to accept the authority of the Catholic Church to believe in the Bible.

While Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe that the Councils had God-given apostolic authority, Protestants believe that the Councils only rubber stamped what the entire Christian community had already determined. In other words, the Bible was created by public appeal.

Both theories have problems as I have already stated in my original post.
0 Replies
 
Monger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 08:56 am
ye110man wrote:
Quote:
Just how many knowledgeable Christians do you know who don't understand that the Bible was compiled by the Church, ye110man? Nobody claims the books of the Bible were magically slapped together by God's own hand.

You'd be surprised.

Maybe. You're underestimating the knowledge of many, though.

ye110man wrote:
Quote:
It's therefore quite easy for anyone to deduct that the Church decided which books were "inspired" & "God's word" & which were not. Whether Christians believe the Church was divinly guided during this process is another issue.

Christians must necessarily believe that the Bible had some divine authority behind it.

Well yes, & I said no less when saying that most every Christian believes, at a minimum, that the books in the Bible were inspired by God. But anyhow, I think I've argued my minor objections to what you wrote past anyone is interested in, so I'ma sign off this one now.
0 Replies
 
Ruach
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 12:58 pm
ok, yell0man, but if I said that the Holy Spirit is the essence that keeps me going straight into the Bible and able to take understanding from it. The Holy Spirit testifies to me of the truth when I hear it and when I study it and proves a truth allowing me to accept it. Remember I was once a disbeliever just as others are.

If Einstein proved a theory and put it on paper for men to read, dont men take it for granted that it is now a truth.

Too many people are into Bible study and learning because it is wisdom that is able to prove itself to the student.
0 Replies
 
yeahman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 01:54 pm
So you did a Holy Spirit test? You gathered up all the early Christian writings, read each one-by-one, and checked to see which ones the Holy Spirit liked?
0 Replies
 
lost my calgon
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jan, 2004 03:20 pm
ok ok....I get your point...

Agnostics question the bible in the same way I question the book of mormon!!!!!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2021 at 05:00:28