Originally posted by jaywillWell, well, well. It's still there.
They also never owned a Xerox machine.
Telling isn't it ?
So all those ecclesiastical technocrats you quoted believed that (a) the sun revolved around the flat earth, and (b) the Book of Reveleation was divinely inspired.
They also never owned a Xerox machine!
You believe that this last point is not non-sequitur.
Telling isn't it?
=================================
Well, well, well. It's still there.
==================================
Not only is it still there but I could add to it.
The men you complain about as to their discernment about canonicity also most likely:
1.) Did not know the speed of light
2.) Did not know the speed of sound
3.) Couldn't explain to us what the Van Allen Belts were
4.) Couldn't tell us approximately how many quasars were known about
5.) Didn't know about the Oort Cloud
6.) Couldn't tell us about quarks
7.) Didn't know about radio waves
8.) Couldn't tell us what a Van Neuman Machine was
9.) Could not discribe the properties of a black hole
These things do not effect their God guided wisdom on matters of the spiritual authority and life changing impact of documents in question for apostolic authorship.
==========================
So all those ecclesiastical technocrats you quoted believed that (a) the sun revolved around the flat earth, and (b) the Book of Reveleation was divinely inspired.
==================================
This is ridiculous as to the topic on a number of grounds.
1.) You cannot prove that that earth is even moving at all strictly speaking scientifically. On a rigorous basis, the problem of frame of reference does not allow you to prove that the sun is really not revolving around the earth.
We can assume it a heliocentric solar system. We cannot really prove it absolutely.
2.) There is no teaching about who circles what in scientific terms in the Bible.
And at least one scientific view is that the long day of Joshua when both the sun and the moon stood still actually implise a heliocentric solar system anyway.
3.) For all practical purposes to that day and age, and in fact in many ways in our own day, it is acceptable to say that the earth is flat.
4.) For many practical purposes there is a level of perfectly acceptable truth in saying that the sun is going around the earth.
You probably speak of "sunrise" and "sunset" with out any sense of those phrases being imprecise according to modern standards.
Your concept of the sun "rising" in the morning should form no hinderance for you from confession of your sins at the conviction of the Holy Spirit ?
Your concept of the "sun going down" should not hinder your consecration to Christ or allowing the Spirit of Christ to sanctify you.
Your quip about their level of astronomical awareness is irrelevant.
Recognizing the canon does not insist that all other opinions held by the recognizers be without errors. Especially, it does not insist that their astronomical ideas be precise according to modern standards.
The godly Jews recongnized the canonicity of their Old Testament books with even less scientific knowledge.
And your attitude suggest that 300 years from now our spiritual discernment of many matters will be invalidated by some presently unknown discoveries.
And on the ground that you state you would also have to invalidate the acceptance of Matthew in the canon.
Aside from all this, the earth could be said to be the spiritual and practical center of the universe anyway. The most important things going on in terms of human life are going on on earth and no where else as far as we know.
Of course if you find humans to be no more significant than rocks then you might argue.
FMF still has not demonstrated that the Christian ethic in Revelation is contrary or different from that in the Sermon on the Mount.
He cannot probably.
And Copernicus' heliocentric solar system is just as prone an invironment to adultery and stealing and other moral problems as in Ptolemy's imprecise model of the solar system.
So we have a phrase in Matthew:
" .. He [God] makes His sun to rise on the evil and the good ..." (Matt. 5:45)
So if the sun really doesn't rise but the earth rotates, then why doesn't FMF say Matthew is as disqualified as Revelation?
Is erroneous "technocracy" used by FMF as grounds to exclude the Sermon on the Mount from the NT canon ?
Originally posted by jaywillThat's a preposterous claim. These guys probably also believed that the Garden Of Eden was actually inhabited by two people, a snake - and there was an apple on hand.
These things do not effect their God guided wisdom on matters of the spiritual authority and life changing impact of documents in question for apostolic authorship.
Originally posted by jaywillAnd you continue...
You cannot prove that that earth is even moving at all strictly speaking scientifically. On a rigorous basis, the problem of frame of reference does not allow you to prove that the sun is really not revolving around the earth.
We can assume it a heliocentric solar system. We cannot really prove it absolutely. There is no teaching about who circles what in scientific terms in the Bible. And at least one scientific view is that the long day of Joshua when both the sun and the moon stood still actually implies a heliocentric solar system anyway. For all practical purposes to that day and age, and in fact in many ways in our own day, it is acceptable to say that the earth is flat. For many practical purposes there is a level of perfectly acceptable truth in saying that the sun is going around the earth.
Am I really supposed to take you seriously?
Originally posted by FMFIrrelevant. I am sure they had different opinions on interpretation of Scripture as latter theologians.
That's a preposterous claim. These guys probably also believed that the Garden Of Eden was actually inhabited by two people, a snake - and there was an apple on hand.
Agreeing that a document was apostolic and should be in the canon was not dependent upon all agreeing on interpretation.
They asked questions like:
Was it written by one of the apostles?
Is it authoritative in tone?
Does it have life changing power?
Was it it circulated among the churches for edification.
(Not just one of these criteria were inquired to, but the cummulative effect).
They did not ask "Do we all agree on the proper interpretation of every sentence?"
Originally posted by FMFI don't take you seriously as a Bible student. So you may response accordingly if you wish.
And you continue...
[b]We can assume it a heliocentric solar system. We cannot really prove it absolutely. There is no teaching about who circles what in scientific terms in the Bible. And at least one scientific view is that the long day of Joshua when both the sun and the moon stood still actually implies a heliocentric solar system anyway. For all practica ...[text shortened]... aying that the sun is going around the earth.
Am I really supposed to take you seriously?[/b]
If you would address the matter of Christian ethics being altered in Revelation in a specific way, that might change my opinion of you level of Bible reading experience.
Originally posted by FMFThink again.
Well the Book of Revelation wasn't, I think that much we can all agree on.
You're nearly two millennia behind the times of these discussions. At least up to 410 A.D. it was not listed as a disputed book as to canonicity.
Where is your record of its inclusion in the NT being argued over in the first 400 years after the ascension of Christ ?
Educate me.
Originally posted by FMFI recall reading years ago that the standing still of both the sun AND the moon implied a heliocentric solarsystem.
Are you serious about the Sun and the Earth?
It is not a major point with me.
While we are on the subject of what I take seriously, I take seriously your obligation to demonstrate that Christian ethic was altered substantially in the book of Revelation.
Why are you picking and choosing what I take seriously ? Do you do so on the basis of what you think you will be able to refute ?
Originally posted by jaywillSo what? You think believing something for 2,000 years increases its truth? We're on page 16 of this thread and you still haven't addressed the accusations I have levelled at the people who foisted the Book of Revelation onto the Bible.
You're nearly two millennia behind the times of these discussions.