For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts
i'd say the voice from heaven is the more sure word of prophecy
Then go back further, the OT people didn't have the Bible. Adam & Eve didn't have the Bible.
The Bible contains experiences (true ones or not is another argument for another day). Why are we to try to replicate those experiences? Why put our trust fully into man, which is what one is doing when they use the Bible as the end all and be all of life?
Men wrote the Bible. Men decided what was to make up the Bible. Men are fallible. Men are jealous, political, evil and wrong. Men aren't perfect. Why put trust in MEN by limiting oneself to the Bible?
With modern technology, instant communication and new discoveries coming to light, it seems that there is a lot more about historical cultures and Biblical times, beliefs and religion that we didn't know before. That raises even more questions about the integrity of the Bible.
The Nag Hammadi Scrolls, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the historical records of the Council of Nicea and the religious sects and men that compiled the Canons and attempted to destroy the ones they didn't want public....all these lend viability to GreasyTech's comments, imo. There seems to have been A LOT more to Christiandom than just what the Bible covers.
There's also the fact that a lot of the OT stories are legends, tales and parables found in religions more ancient than Christianity and that go further back than the recorded Bible.
Please provide this evidence (or at least a subset)...
And I'm not referring to evidence to contraindicate the fundie interpretation of scripture...that is easily refuted...
Libraries are littered with books with evidence, including topics in history, archeology, and comparative religion (very enlightening). The question is, does one want to take an honest look at it? Or, as is usually the case, the fear of loosing one's faith in God and risking eternal damnation (or lose of eternal life, rewards, etc) take precedence?
The converse is an equally good question: Do you have any proof that the Bible is the will of God, outside of the Bible claiming such? Or are we required to believe it is because someone says it is? And why is it any different than every other religion claiming the same?
quote: With modern technology, instant communication and new discoveries coming to light, it seems that there is a lot more about historical cultures and Biblical times, beliefs and religion that we didn't know before. That raises even more questions about the integrity of the Bible.
Let me get this straight. I'm supposed to question the integrity of the bible because it was written by men, but this so called modern technology, etc. is better even though it ALSO was written by MEN! Hey, watch out for those men. I hear they're fallible, jealous, political, evil, and wrong.
Anybody whose motive to question the scriptures is to merely prove VPW or someone else wrong is highly suspect. They've ALREADY handled the word of God deceitfully. Whatever happened to showing yourself approved before God?
well John, you got to have the word of truth to rightly divide it. Not rightly divide to get the word of truth. We have been led to think it's talking about the scriptures. I think it's talking about the word of truth that is shown to us by the Holy Spirit. Sure scriptures play a part in it, if we know them.
I don't have any problem with the scriptures being written by men and believe they were moved by the Holy Spirit. But what about now? What is the word of truth that is needed now for me.
Why would Paul pray that eyes be enlightened in Ephesians? It has to come from the Holy Spirit to be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height. And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Let me get this straight. I'm supposed to question the integrity of the bible because it was written by men, but this so called modern technology, etc. is better even though it ALSO was written by MEN! Hey, watch out for those men. I hear they're fallible, jealous, political, evil, and wrong.
Lighten up, Cowboy. It's just a discussion. :) It's also a response to my post taken out of context. What I said was that because of this so called modern technology and more recent discoveries, such as the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea scrolls, that there is more information available to us regarding history, religions and beliefs. This information casts doubt, imo, on the infallibility of the Bible as we know it.
Even, as someone else mentioned, the Catholic church has additional books in their Bible that mainstream Christianity doesn't have. Should those books be given equal weight as the other books in the Bible? Are they God-breathed also? What other books might there be out there that are also God-breathed, but not included in the Bible?
And, as GreasyTech asked - how do we know that it really is God breathed?
The converse is an equally good question: Do you have any proof that the Bible is the will of God, outside of the Bible claiming such? Or are we required to believe it is because someone says it is? And why is it any different than every other religion claiming the same?
You conveniently skipped over that question. ;)
Not sure who this part is directed at, but it's pretty much nothing but assumption and we know what happens when someone foot U MEs something, don't we? I'm asking genuine questions and I prefer genuine, respectful answers and discussions. If you can't play nice, I'd really prefer that you go play on someone else's threads. It's hard to take you seriously when you start blathering like you did in your last post.
Anybody whose motive to question the scriptures is to merely prove VPW or someone else wrong is highly suspect. They've ALREADY handled the word of God deceitfully. Whatever happened to showing yourself approved before God?
Even, as someone else mentioned, the Catholic church has additional books in their Bible that mainstream Christianity doesn't have. Should those books be given equal weight as the other books in the Bible? Are they God-breathed also? What other books might there be out there that are also God-breathed, but not included in the Bible?
In fact, the original compilation of the Bible had all of these so-called "additional" books. This compilation was based upon the Jewish Community up until at least 70 AD. As an example of this, the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT), which dates back to before Christ, has these texts. The texts are not only accepted by the Latin and Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, but are also accepted by the Orthodox and Copts, as well. From my understanding (and I do not claim to be an expert in Anglicanism), readings from these books are part of the Anglican lectionary.
Luther rejected these books because they were not part of the Masoratic compilation of OT scriptures. They were, however, part of the Septuagint, as I said earlier. Here's the funny part of it all: the Septuagint dated from around the third century BC...the Masoratic canon wasn't compiled and available for modern use until around 300-500 AD (when the Talmud was finally compiled after the Roman diaspora in 70 AD). Yes, I know that there was a Masorah in the Temple from around 100BC; however neither this text nor any complete text prepared from it are available (at least to my knowledge). I am aware of the Dead Sea Scrolls...but, to my knowledge, they are incomplete fragments...
Here's the point, though. Those books weren't added to the Canon of the Old Testament...they are not "additional books." They were taken away in the 16th century. In addition, they are not simply "Catholic" books, but they are accepted and used by ALL of the historic churches, not just the Latin Church. They are only rejected by the descendent groups that can be traced to the western European schism of the 16th century (commonly called the Protestant reformation).
I know you're doing a lot of searching and so if you decide to settle on Christianity when you're done with your quest, you may wish to consider the above.
Here's the point, though. Those books weren't added to the Canon of the Old Testament...they are not "additional books." They were taken away in the 16th century. In addition, they are not simply "Catholic" books, but they are accepted and used by ALL of the historic churches, not just the Latin Church. They are only rejected by the descendent groups that can be traced to the western European schism of the 16th century (commonly called the Protestant reformation).
Woah, Mark! I did not know that! So, the US Protestants have essentially, "taken away" from the Word of God? That's what it looks like. That's another reason why I have so much trouble just having "faith" in the Bible and in the teachings that it's the word of God. I think it's a great resource, but I think that to focus only on that one book is to miss out on so much more and to limit ourselves and God's ability to work within us.
I also seem to see metaphysical (right word?) things in the scriptures that I didn't see before because of the other things I've looked into, including, but not limited to the Nag Hammadi scrolls, other historical records of the history of religion and Christianity. There's a lot I don't know, but I'm coming to the conclusion that the things I *thought* I knew are not so. :) It's all good, though! I'm enjoying the journey.
Thank you all for humoring me, being patient with me and taking the time to continue these discussions. I really do get a lot out of them.
Woah, Mark! I did not know that! So, the US Protestants have essentially, "taken away" from the Word of God? That's what it looks like.
Not the US Protestants. This happened over in Europe. So it's not a US problem.
That's another reason why I have so much trouble just having "faith" in the Bible and in the teachings that it's the word of God. I think it's a great resource, but I think that to focus only on that one book is to miss out on so much more and to limit ourselves and God's ability to work within us.
That's one reason why I prefer the traditional, historic approach to the problem rather than the sola scriptura approach.
Consider the following verses:
1Cr 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
1Cr 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Jud 1:3 Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
bolding mine
If you were to do a simple word study on the word "delivered," (paradidomi), you would find out that the word could be substituted with "handed over" very easily. Also, the word "saints" could easily and accurately be rendered "holy ones."
The point that I'd raise is that a regard for the Bible is very proper. After all, all scripture is given by inspiration of God, right? But a regard solely for the Bible without regard for the tradition passed down by the Fathers of the Church (starting with the apostles) is, as the above-cited scriptures testify, unscriptural! (IMHO YMMV)
I also seem to see metaphysical (right word?) things in the scriptures that I didn't see before because of the other things I've looked into, including, but not limited to the Nag Hammadi scrolls, other historical records of the history of religion and Christianity. There's a lot I don't know, but I'm coming to the conclusion that the things I *thought* I knew are not so. :) It's all good, though! I'm enjoying the journey.
True, there are some issues where one must consider metaphysics. The biggest issue to be considered, though, is the ontological differences between a temporal being, like man, and one who is not bounded by time or space, i.e., God. There are perceptive differences there that must be considered. For example, trying to apply our temporal comprehension to John's apocolypse renders it meaningless, silly, and in the case of some who foolishly try to set a date, potentially dangerous.
One thing to keep in mind is that Jesus promised that the paraclete would come and guide the apostles into "all truth" until His return (Jn 14-16) So (with due respect to Danny), I would tend to regard the teachings preserved by the apostles and their successors with much higher regard than those that were utterly rejected by them (such as various gnostic sources). This is not to say that there is nothing to learn from those writings, but (again IMHO) one must keep in careful context those writings that advocate different positions. (And, again, with due respect to Danny, YMMV. I have the highest regard for his study, knowledge, and courtesy. We have just arrived at different conclusions to the same problem.)
As always, I think there are a few assumptions made in order to get to "the Word of God is the Will of God."
1- There is a god
2- The Bible declares the God
3- The Bible is this God's Word
4- This Word is this God's will
That aside I think there are some very interesting posts here.
The Bible says (KJV) that "the prophecy of old came not by the will of man" but that "holy men of God spake as they were moved my the holy spirit." We were taught it was "God breathed" and came by "the inspiration of God."
First question, what is the prophecy of old? Are we assuming it was the OT and only the OT historical version or prodestant version? The verse says spake, not wrote. I know that perhaps they had stenographers, but it does say spoke. Many theologians believe that many areas of the OT came first by oral tradition and then were written latter. Ever played "telephone?" Not all of the OT is prophecy- as in fore telling. Were we assuming that the "prophecy" in that verse was both fore and forth telling?
Now what about "moved by" or "God breathed." Well, in TWI we were taught that it basically meant that men of God spoke the words of God, word for word, none of it was man's word. That seems to be another big assumption. Moved by could literally mean God took his "hands" and moved their lips and made them speak. Although, in TWI that would fall more under the catagory of possessed. It could also mean the same as "inspired by." Inspired by doesn't mean that at all in my world. As an artist, I get inspired by all kinds of things. This does not mean that the work I do is the will or the word or the work of my inspriation. That would be rediculous. Although it is my will to use that inspiration in my work, I have a choice to do so or not to. So, I get inspired by a lot of things but not all of it is put into my work. It is the same with writers and any other creative occupation/ hobby. So was there more inspiration never written?
What is "the will of man?" Did we assume it meant the "words of man" because we were aready assuming the WORD of God = the WILL of God? Could it mean that regardless of what the men speaking wanted to say they decided to say what they were inspired by? Sometimes it is this way with art. What I origianlly started out to do could change if I am inspired along the way and decide to change it.
So it is good to see that most here don't limit themselves to one book or solely books in general. Personally, I think there are things to learn from everywhere, whether it be nature, peoples actions, their words, the bible, books of all kind, etc.
I know that all of my words are not my will and all of my will is never put into words written or spoken. Sometimes I am unable to but my will or my thoughts into either.
As always, I think there are a few assumptions made in order to get to "the Word of God is the Will of God."
1- There is a god
2- The Bible declares the God
3- The Bible is this God's Word
4- This Word is this God's will
That aside I think there are some very interesting posts here.
Good post, Lindy. But....
The assumptions you cite:
1) agreed
2) agreed
3) I would rather put it that God's Word is expressed in the Bible.
4) I would also put it that God's Will is contained in the Bible.
I categorically reject, as I've expressed before, the false logic that Wierwille and others espouse that the Word of God = the Will of God.
OK?
The Bible says (KJV) that "the prophecy of old came not by the will of man" but that "holy men of God spake as they were moved my the holy spirit."
2 Pet 1:21
KJV: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost."
RSV: "because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
NASB: "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
NAB: "for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God."
Interestingly, the words rendered in the kjv as 'came' and 'moved' are both the Greek word phero. The first usage (the will of man clause) is in the 3rd person singular, aorist tense (indicating something, looked at from outside, happened in the past), indicative mood. The second usage is a participle written in the passive voice present tense. The meaning of the word itself is "to bear, to carry"
IMHO (YMMV) I would think that this verse would be better translated as
(The ability of) Prophecy was not at any time borne by human will, but men, carried by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God.
We were taught it was "God breathed" and came by "the inspiration of God."
First question, what is the prophecy of old? Are we assuming it was the OT and only the OT historical version or prodestant version? The verse says spake, not wrote. I know that perhaps they had stenographers, but it does say spoke. Many theologians believe that many areas of the OT came first by oral tradition and then were written latter. Ever played "telephone?" Not all of the OT is prophecy- as in fore telling. Were we assuming that the "prophecy" in that verse was both fore and forth telling?
As pertains to this passage ONLY, ok?
First of all, the word God breathed is not used in this verse. Nor is the inspiration of God. Since we're talking about this verse (2 Pe 1:21), let's stay within that context.
Peter starts off by exhorting the audience (presumably a church in asia) to remain faithful. He then asserts their authority in vv 16-21. Please note the shift of persons from verse 15 to vv 16-21 (from "I" to "we"). In verse 16 he starts by stressing the authenticity of his message. He says in verse 16-18 that they were eyewitnesses, specifically mentioning the transfiguration.
In verse 19, we have a statement often taken out of context by King James lovers, "a more sure word of prophecy."
First of all, the word "prophecy" is actually the adjective form of the word "prophetia" (the word used in vs 20 and 21).
If you look at the word "prophetia" in the classical Greek, it refers to the 'gift of interpreting the will of the gods.' In the NT, it can refer either to the ability/gift or to the message.
Next, the word "word" is logos, which emphasizes the content rather than the physical words (graphe -- used in v 20, emphasizes the words over the content).
There is no corresponding greek word for "more"
The corresponding word for "sure" is bebaios -- sure is an OK translation. Could also be "firm, sure, certain, steady, etc."
Therefore, this phrase is better translated as: "and we have the certain prophetic message"
Then we have verse 20-21. Verse 20 is pretty well translated. Verse 21 was covered above.
But here's the key: the structure of what is written here.
Peter asserts their authority (from the context mentioning eyewitnesses, its apparent he's referring to the apostles as 'we') as eyewitnesses. He then mentions that they have the certain prophetic word (cf Jn 16:13 -- when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth.) He then says that the prophecy of the scripture is reliable. Then, if you look at 2 Pet 2, you will notice that he immediately warns them about false teachers. If you see the contra-example in 2 Pet 2, the example shown in 2 Pet 1 becomes very clear.
OK, so why all of this? Because Peter is saying that the scriptures are reliable...but, in the same breath, he is saying that what they are hearing from the apostles are reliable. You really can't separate one from the other.
Next, what is he talking about when he speaks about the scriptures? Immediately, he would have to be referring to the OT, as there was no canon of the NT established yet (even though 2 Pt is noted to be the last canonical NT writing). Now that the canon of the NT is set (by the successors to the apostles who have the 'certain prophetic message'), it is apparent that it should be interpreted to both the OT canon and the NT canon.
Now what about "moved by" or "God breathed."
Already covered above.
Well, in TWI we were taught that it basically meant that men of God spoke the words of God, word for word, none of it was man's word. That seems to be another big assumption. Moved by could literally mean God took his "hands" and moved their lips and made them speak. Although, in TWI that would fall more under the catagory of possessed. It could also mean the same as "inspired by." Inspired by doesn't mean that at all in my world. As an artist, I get inspired by all kinds of things. This does not mean that the work I do is the will or the word or the work of my inspriation. That would be rediculous. Although it is my will to use that inspiration in my work, I have a choice to do so or not to. So, I get inspired by a lot of things but not all of it is put into my work. It is the same with writers and any other creative occupation/ hobby. So was there more inspiration never written?
What is "the will of man?" Did we assume it meant the "words of man" because we were aready assuming the WORD of God = the WILL of God? Could it mean that regardless of what the men speaking wanted to say they decided to say what they were inspired by? Sometimes it is this way with art. What I origianlly started out to do could change if I am inspired along the way and decide to change it.
So it is good to see that most here don't limit themselves to one book or solely books in general. Personally, I think there are things to learn from everywhere, whether it be nature, peoples actions, their words, the bible, books of all kind, etc.
I know that all of my words are not my will and all of my will is never put into words written or spoken. Sometimes I am unable to but my will or my thoughts into either.
Well, I try not to remember what TWI taught when I can. I prefer to actually go to more authoritative sources...such as the Bible itself and the Patristic Fathers...
First, I undoubtedly believe that "All scripture is inspired by God." But I also can clearly see that there are multiple varieties with which this inspiration happened.
It's clear that some of the scriptures are writings of visions. It is clear that others are records of oral histories (such as Mark, Luke). Others apparently are diary-type writings. Still others are records of words God inspired prophets to speak. Others are the poetry and songs written by people inspired by God. It is my fervent belief that God preserved a message to all of mankind through these words...and I also believe that God has preserved these writings. But I don't believe that any of them were a case of "automatic writing," such as TWI tried to teach (yes, I know they didn't literally teach that, but close enough).
Do I believe there can be other inspired writings (or as you point out paintings, songs, etc.)? Sure I do.
Do I believe that they should be elevated to the stature of the canonical writings? No.
Do I believe that God cut off the spigot when 2 Peter was finished? Nope. Because I believe that God has continually worked and guided His Church since He sent the paraclete and will continue to do so until the time of the parousia (second coming), so "that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. " (Eph 5:27) [And no, that does not mean that I think that all the people, including leaders, of the Church are without spot, wrinkle, etc.]
As to your discourse on the will of man, I reject the assumption from which you draw the parallel, so I'll just leave that alone for now.
Hope that helps. Again, great post Lindy!
On edit: to remove a duplication in the post that may have made it unclear.
I would tend to regard the teachings preserved by the apostles and their successors with much higher regard than those that were utterly rejected by them (such as various gnostic sources).
**sigh**
apostle successors.....utterly rejected...
Again, winners writing history few will question.
When you've got the power of the Roman military behind you, fairly easy to do. Just torture and kill the dissenters and obliterate any trace of them.
Constantine, though only seeing political advantage and control, doesn't get enough credit for Christianity as we know it.
When you've got the power of the Roman military behind you, fairly easy to do. Just torture and kill the dissenters and obliterate any trace of them.
Constantine, though only seeing political advantage and control, doesn't get enough credit for Christianity as we know it.
**sigh**
Your mileage may vary. If you don't like what's served, don't eat.
But I guess that's what I get...try to give a serious answer to what I perceive to be a serious question by Lindy and I end up taking crap off a smart-a$$.
Hey, you're a mod...if you don't like what I write here in 'doctrine', rather than spewing short little bits of ill-conceived garbage (I like your last answer to me too...'go to the library'), why don't you use your power and ban me? You'd probably please about 75% of the participants of the site if you did. Nah, make that 90%.
Or, alternatively, you could act like an adult and constructively engage in the conversation.
Constantine, though only seeing political advantage and control, doesn't get enough credit for Christianity as we know it.
Many things serve as a point of growth and seeing.
There will always be those who take the truth and twist it to there own end to serve themselves. And use it to beat people up. Yet it will usually backfire on them if the fire within is hot enough.
Many things serve as a point of growth and seeing.
There will always be those who take the truth and twist it to there own end to serve themselves. And use it to beat people up. Yet it will usually backfire on them if the fire within is hot enough.
Again, **sigh**
Been through this not that long ago...
Please review this post and the one immediately following it. They contain a discussion of the Edict of Milan.
The problem comes in with this document, the Donation of Constantine. This document, actually written in the 8th century, is the source of the the accusations that Constantine was the origin of the corruption of Christianity. The following passage is from an introduction to the document posted at Fordham University. Please check out the link.
This is perhaps the most famous forgery in history. For centuries, until Lorenzo Valla proved it was forgery during the Renaissance it provied the basis for papal territorial and jurisdictional claims in Italy. Probably at least a first draft of it was made shortly after the middle of the eighth century in order to assist Pope Stephen II in his negotiations with the Frankish Mayor of the Palace, Pepin the Short. The Pope crossed the Alps to anoint the latter as king in 754, thereby enabling, the Carolingian family, to which Pepin belonged, to supplant the old Merovingian royal line which had become decadent and powerless and to become in law as well as in fact rulers of the Franks. In return, Pepin seems to have promised to give to the Pope those lands in Italy which the Lombards had taken from Byzantium. The promise was fulfilled in 756. Constantine's alleged gift made it possible to interpret Pepin's grant not as a benefaction but as a restoration.
The actual document follows (can be viewed at the above link).
We had this discussion back last September already. I hate going back over the same material over and over again. But I guess this should be viewed as an opportunity to have patience.
Belle: I ain't playing. You may be, but I'm not. You can believe whatever you want, but it looks like to me that you want to do everything possible to know God's will EXCEPT go directly to God.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
19
15
23
Popular Days
Jan 18
23
Jan 20
11
Jan 22
10
Jan 25
9
Top Posters In This Topic
GT 16 posts
CM 19 posts
johniam 15 posts
markomalley 23 posts
Popular Days
Jan 18 2006
23 posts
Jan 20 2006
11 posts
Jan 22 2006
10 posts
Jan 25 2006
9 posts
CM
hey! u know why there were so many tent makers?
cuz they kept pitching them! :)
ample evidence.....hmmmmmm
when experienced and seen there will be
don't assume, don't guess, it'll show itself
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: i suppose those in Acts were in big trouble then
they didn't have the "bible"
They had the OT. Jesus and Paul quoted it all the time.
The more sure word of prophecy is the scriptures; it says so in the very next verse. Hello.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts
i'd say the voice from heaven is the more sure word of prophecy
it says "we have also"
but opinions vary...
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Then go back further, the OT people didn't have the Bible. Adam & Eve didn't have the Bible.
The Bible contains experiences (true ones or not is another argument for another day). Why are we to try to replicate those experiences? Why put our trust fully into man, which is what one is doing when they use the Bible as the end all and be all of life?
Men wrote the Bible. Men decided what was to make up the Bible. Men are fallible. Men are jealous, political, evil and wrong. Men aren't perfect. Why put trust in MEN by limiting oneself to the Bible?
With modern technology, instant communication and new discoveries coming to light, it seems that there is a lot more about historical cultures and Biblical times, beliefs and religion that we didn't know before. That raises even more questions about the integrity of the Bible.
The Nag Hammadi Scrolls, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the historical records of the Council of Nicea and the religious sects and men that compiled the Canons and attempted to destroy the ones they didn't want public....all these lend viability to GreasyTech's comments, imo. There seems to have been A LOT more to Christiandom than just what the Bible covers.
There's also the fact that a lot of the OT stories are legends, tales and parables found in religions more ancient than Christianity and that go further back than the recorded Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Libraries are littered with books with evidence, including topics in history, archeology, and comparative religion (very enlightening). The question is, does one want to take an honest look at it? Or, as is usually the case, the fear of loosing one's faith in God and risking eternal damnation (or lose of eternal life, rewards, etc) take precedence?
The converse is an equally good question: Do you have any proof that the Bible is the will of God, outside of the Bible claiming such? Or are we required to believe it is because someone says it is? And why is it any different than every other religion claiming the same?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
perhaps better questions would be-
how do we understand what the word is?
and
do the scriptures really have anything for us today?
and
how is it confirmed and understood and lived?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
quote: With modern technology, instant communication and new discoveries coming to light, it seems that there is a lot more about historical cultures and Biblical times, beliefs and religion that we didn't know before. That raises even more questions about the integrity of the Bible.
Let me get this straight. I'm supposed to question the integrity of the bible because it was written by men, but this so called modern technology, etc. is better even though it ALSO was written by MEN! Hey, watch out for those men. I hear they're fallible, jealous, political, evil, and wrong.
Anybody whose motive to question the scriptures is to merely prove VPW or someone else wrong is highly suspect. They've ALREADY handled the word of God deceitfully. Whatever happened to showing yourself approved before God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
well John, you got to have the word of truth to rightly divide it. Not rightly divide to get the word of truth. We have been led to think it's talking about the scriptures. I think it's talking about the word of truth that is shown to us by the Holy Spirit. Sure scriptures play a part in it, if we know them.
I don't have any problem with the scriptures being written by men and believe they were moved by the Holy Spirit. But what about now? What is the word of truth that is needed now for me.
Why would Paul pray that eyes be enlightened in Ephesians? It has to come from the Holy Spirit to be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height. And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Even, as someone else mentioned, the Catholic church has additional books in their Bible that mainstream Christianity doesn't have. Should those books be given equal weight as the other books in the Bible? Are they God-breathed also? What other books might there be out there that are also God-breathed, but not included in the Bible?
And, as GreasyTech asked - how do we know that it really is God breathed?
You conveniently skipped over that question. ;)
Not sure who this part is directed at, but it's pretty much nothing but assumption and we know what happens when someone foot U MEs something, don't we? I'm asking genuine questions and I prefer genuine, respectful answers and discussions. If you can't play nice, I'd really prefer that you go play on someone else's threads. It's hard to take you seriously when you start blathering like you did in your last post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Belle,
Just as a point of context...
You said,
In fact, the original compilation of the Bible had all of these so-called "additional" books. This compilation was based upon the Jewish Community up until at least 70 AD. As an example of this, the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT), which dates back to before Christ, has these texts. The texts are not only accepted by the Latin and Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, but are also accepted by the Orthodox and Copts, as well. From my understanding (and I do not claim to be an expert in Anglicanism), readings from these books are part of the Anglican lectionary.
Luther rejected these books because they were not part of the Masoratic compilation of OT scriptures. They were, however, part of the Septuagint, as I said earlier. Here's the funny part of it all: the Septuagint dated from around the third century BC...the Masoratic canon wasn't compiled and available for modern use until around 300-500 AD (when the Talmud was finally compiled after the Roman diaspora in 70 AD). Yes, I know that there was a Masorah in the Temple from around 100BC; however neither this text nor any complete text prepared from it are available (at least to my knowledge). I am aware of the Dead Sea Scrolls...but, to my knowledge, they are incomplete fragments...
There are other texts that Luther considered disposing of, as well: Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation.
Here's the point, though. Those books weren't added to the Canon of the Old Testament...they are not "additional books." They were taken away in the 16th century. In addition, they are not simply "Catholic" books, but they are accepted and used by ALL of the historic churches, not just the Latin Church. They are only rejected by the descendent groups that can be traced to the western European schism of the 16th century (commonly called the Protestant reformation).
I know you're doing a lot of searching and so if you decide to settle on Christianity when you're done with your quest, you may wish to consider the above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
johniam - i think yout ponderings are worthy
though on a board like this, sometimes it comes out
without it's intended meaning and heart
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Woah, Mark! I did not know that! So, the US Protestants have essentially, "taken away" from the Word of God? That's what it looks like. That's another reason why I have so much trouble just having "faith" in the Bible and in the teachings that it's the word of God. I think it's a great resource, but I think that to focus only on that one book is to miss out on so much more and to limit ourselves and God's ability to work within us.
I also seem to see metaphysical (right word?) things in the scriptures that I didn't see before because of the other things I've looked into, including, but not limited to the Nag Hammadi scrolls, other historical records of the history of religion and Christianity. There's a lot I don't know, but I'm coming to the conclusion that the things I *thought* I knew are not so. :) It's all good, though! I'm enjoying the journey.
Thank you all for humoring me, being patient with me and taking the time to continue these discussions. I really do get a lot out of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Not the US Protestants. This happened over in Europe. So it's not a US problem.
That's one reason why I prefer the traditional, historic approach to the problem rather than the sola scriptura approach.Consider the following verses:
1Cr 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
1Cr 11:2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.
2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.
Jud 1:3 Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
bolding mine
If you were to do a simple word study on the word "delivered," (paradidomi), you would find out that the word could be substituted with "handed over" very easily. Also, the word "saints" could easily and accurately be rendered "holy ones."
The point that I'd raise is that a regard for the Bible is very proper. After all, all scripture is given by inspiration of God, right? But a regard solely for the Bible without regard for the tradition passed down by the Fathers of the Church (starting with the apostles) is, as the above-cited scriptures testify, unscriptural! (IMHO YMMV)
True, there are some issues where one must consider metaphysics. The biggest issue to be considered, though, is the ontological differences between a temporal being, like man, and one who is not bounded by time or space, i.e., God. There are perceptive differences there that must be considered. For example, trying to apply our temporal comprehension to John's apocolypse renders it meaningless, silly, and in the case of some who foolishly try to set a date, potentially dangerous.
One thing to keep in mind is that Jesus promised that the paraclete would come and guide the apostles into "all truth" until His return (Jn 14-16) So (with due respect to Danny), I would tend to regard the teachings preserved by the apostles and their successors with much higher regard than those that were utterly rejected by them (such as various gnostic sources). This is not to say that there is nothing to learn from those writings, but (again IMHO) one must keep in careful context those writings that advocate different positions. (And, again, with due respect to Danny, YMMV. I have the highest regard for his study, knowledge, and courtesy. We have just arrived at different conclusions to the same problem.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
As always, I think there are a few assumptions made in order to get to "the Word of God is the Will of God."
1- There is a god
2- The Bible declares the God
3- The Bible is this God's Word
4- This Word is this God's will
That aside I think there are some very interesting posts here.
The Bible says (KJV) that "the prophecy of old came not by the will of man" but that "holy men of God spake as they were moved my the holy spirit." We were taught it was "God breathed" and came by "the inspiration of God."
First question, what is the prophecy of old? Are we assuming it was the OT and only the OT historical version or prodestant version? The verse says spake, not wrote. I know that perhaps they had stenographers, but it does say spoke. Many theologians believe that many areas of the OT came first by oral tradition and then were written latter. Ever played "telephone?" Not all of the OT is prophecy- as in fore telling. Were we assuming that the "prophecy" in that verse was both fore and forth telling?
Now what about "moved by" or "God breathed." Well, in TWI we were taught that it basically meant that men of God spoke the words of God, word for word, none of it was man's word. That seems to be another big assumption. Moved by could literally mean God took his "hands" and moved their lips and made them speak. Although, in TWI that would fall more under the catagory of possessed. It could also mean the same as "inspired by." Inspired by doesn't mean that at all in my world. As an artist, I get inspired by all kinds of things. This does not mean that the work I do is the will or the word or the work of my inspriation. That would be rediculous. Although it is my will to use that inspiration in my work, I have a choice to do so or not to. So, I get inspired by a lot of things but not all of it is put into my work. It is the same with writers and any other creative occupation/ hobby. So was there more inspiration never written?
What is "the will of man?" Did we assume it meant the "words of man" because we were aready assuming the WORD of God = the WILL of God? Could it mean that regardless of what the men speaking wanted to say they decided to say what they were inspired by? Sometimes it is this way with art. What I origianlly started out to do could change if I am inspired along the way and decide to change it.
So it is good to see that most here don't limit themselves to one book or solely books in general. Personally, I think there are things to learn from everywhere, whether it be nature, peoples actions, their words, the bible, books of all kind, etc.
I know that all of my words are not my will and all of my will is never put into words written or spoken. Sometimes I am unable to but my will or my thoughts into either.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
one problem is comparing what twi said to what we can learn
either from the scriptures or each other
just throw out the old sayings that are not in the scriptures
and stick with what it says and what it says to you
and understanding will grow and change
obviously twi's way ain't the way
by their fruit you shall know them
which takes some patience to see
and take the time to "try the spirits"
the thoughts...the glimpses...the possibilities....
and fear not when it becomes more real
then anything previously experienced
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Good post, Lindy. But....
The assumptions you cite:
1) agreed
2) agreed
3) I would rather put it that God's Word is expressed in the Bible.
4) I would also put it that God's Will is contained in the Bible.
I categorically reject, as I've expressed before, the false logic that Wierwille and others espouse that the Word of God = the Will of God.
OK?
2 Pet 1:21KJV: "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost."
RSV: "because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
NASB: "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
NAB: "for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God."
Interestingly, the words rendered in the kjv as 'came' and 'moved' are both the Greek word phero. The first usage (the will of man clause) is in the 3rd person singular, aorist tense (indicating something, looked at from outside, happened in the past), indicative mood. The second usage is a participle written in the passive voice present tense. The meaning of the word itself is "to bear, to carry"
IMHO (YMMV) I would think that this verse would be better translated as
(The ability of) Prophecy was not at any time borne by human will, but men, carried by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God.
As pertains to this passage ONLY, ok?
First of all, the word God breathed is not used in this verse. Nor is the inspiration of God. Since we're talking about this verse (2 Pe 1:21), let's stay within that context.
Peter starts off by exhorting the audience (presumably a church in asia) to remain faithful. He then asserts their authority in vv 16-21. Please note the shift of persons from verse 15 to vv 16-21 (from "I" to "we"). In verse 16 he starts by stressing the authenticity of his message. He says in verse 16-18 that they were eyewitnesses, specifically mentioning the transfiguration.
In verse 19, we have a statement often taken out of context by King James lovers, "a more sure word of prophecy."
Then we have verse 20-21. Verse 20 is pretty well translated. Verse 21 was covered above.
But here's the key: the structure of what is written here.
Peter asserts their authority (from the context mentioning eyewitnesses, its apparent he's referring to the apostles as 'we') as eyewitnesses. He then mentions that they have the certain prophetic word (cf Jn 16:13 -- when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth.) He then says that the prophecy of the scripture is reliable. Then, if you look at 2 Pet 2, you will notice that he immediately warns them about false teachers. If you see the contra-example in 2 Pet 2, the example shown in 2 Pet 1 becomes very clear.
OK, so why all of this? Because Peter is saying that the scriptures are reliable...but, in the same breath, he is saying that what they are hearing from the apostles are reliable. You really can't separate one from the other.
Next, what is he talking about when he speaks about the scriptures? Immediately, he would have to be referring to the OT, as there was no canon of the NT established yet (even though 2 Pt is noted to be the last canonical NT writing). Now that the canon of the NT is set (by the successors to the apostles who have the 'certain prophetic message'), it is apparent that it should be interpreted to both the OT canon and the NT canon.
Already covered above.Well, I try not to remember what TWI taught when I can. I prefer to actually go to more authoritative sources...such as the Bible itself and the Patristic Fathers...
First, I undoubtedly believe that "All scripture is inspired by God." But I also can clearly see that there are multiple varieties with which this inspiration happened.
It's clear that some of the scriptures are writings of visions. It is clear that others are records of oral histories (such as Mark, Luke). Others apparently are diary-type writings. Still others are records of words God inspired prophets to speak. Others are the poetry and songs written by people inspired by God. It is my fervent belief that God preserved a message to all of mankind through these words...and I also believe that God has preserved these writings. But I don't believe that any of them were a case of "automatic writing," such as TWI tried to teach (yes, I know they didn't literally teach that, but close enough).
Do I believe there can be other inspired writings (or as you point out paintings, songs, etc.)? Sure I do.
Do I believe that they should be elevated to the stature of the canonical writings? No.
Do I believe that God cut off the spigot when 2 Peter was finished? Nope. Because I believe that God has continually worked and guided His Church since He sent the paraclete and will continue to do so until the time of the parousia (second coming), so "that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. " (Eph 5:27) [And no, that does not mean that I think that all the people, including leaders, of the Church are without spot, wrinkle, etc.]
As to your discourse on the will of man, I reject the assumption from which you draw the parallel, so I'll just leave that alone for now.
Hope that helps. Again, great post Lindy!
On edit: to remove a duplication in the post that may have made it unclear.
Edited by markomalleyLink to comment
Share on other sites
GT
**sigh**
apostle successors.....utterly rejected...
Again, winners writing history few will question.
When you've got the power of the Roman military behind you, fairly easy to do. Just torture and kill the dissenters and obliterate any trace of them.
Constantine, though only seeing political advantage and control, doesn't get enough credit for Christianity as we know it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
**sigh**
Your mileage may vary. If you don't like what's served, don't eat.
But I guess that's what I get...try to give a serious answer to what I perceive to be a serious question by Lindy and I end up taking crap off a smart-a$$.
Hey, you're a mod...if you don't like what I write here in 'doctrine', rather than spewing short little bits of ill-conceived garbage (I like your last answer to me too...'go to the library'), why don't you use your power and ban me? You'd probably please about 75% of the participants of the site if you did. Nah, make that 90%.
Or, alternatively, you could act like an adult and constructively engage in the conversation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GT
Someone a little on edge?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Many things serve as a point of growth and seeing.
There will always be those who take the truth and twist it to there own end to serve themselves. And use it to beat people up. Yet it will usually backfire on them if the fire within is hot enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Again, **sigh**
Been through this not that long ago...
Please review this post and the one immediately following it. They contain a discussion of the Edict of Milan.
Then Please review the following , where the Donation of Constantine is discussed.
The problem comes in with this document, the Donation of Constantine. This document, actually written in the 8th century, is the source of the the accusations that Constantine was the origin of the corruption of Christianity. The following passage is from an introduction to the document posted at Fordham University. Please check out the link.
The actual document follows (can be viewed at the above link).
We had this discussion back last September already. I hate going back over the same material over and over again. But I guess this should be viewed as an opportunity to have patience.
**sigh**
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Mark
people will read what they want to read
and believe it or not, still get answers
when they search from the heart
a scholar it does not take
for not many are chosen
Edited by CMLink to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
Belle: I ain't playing. You may be, but I'm not. You can believe whatever you want, but it looks like to me that you want to do everything possible to know God's will EXCEPT go directly to God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.