210d
@moonbus saidI feel convinced it’s a mix, until shown to be otherwise.
Then the answer is, "you don't know that the Bible records what God said." I don't think any thoughtful Christian thinks the Bible is anything but what people said, and the question is, whether those people were inspired by God or just making stuff up.
Other questions arise:
Why is the Bible the ONLY word of God?
What about writings by other people genuinely inspired of God?
This is the basis to my repeated question to Kellyjay “is the bible the complete inerrant and exclusive word of God”.
He answered no once but now says “LIAR” every time I remind him of it.
I’ll post the link to where he said it to save me replying to him shouting “LIAR”
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/attributes-of-god.195809/page-10#post_4617123
210d
2 edits
@divegeester saidWell, to someone who hasn't any personal investment in the NT specifically, a rational-skeptic's answer is:
I feel convinced it’s a mix, until shown to be otherwise.
Other questions arise:
Why is the Bible the ONLY word of God?
What about writings by other people genuinely inspired of God?
This is the basis to my repeated question to Kellyjay “is the bible the complete inerrant and exclusive word of God”.
He answered no once but now says “LIAR” every time I remind him ...[text shortened]... “LIAR”
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/attributes-of-god.195809/page-10#post_4617123
If God ever spoke to mankind, it is highly unlikely that He did so only once and only in Hebrew. It is much more probable that if God spoke to mankind, then it occurred to different peoples, in different dialects or other forms (burning brushes, blue elephants, dreams/visions, etc.) which would be understandable to those people at that time and place. This is in fact what Muslims believe, and the Quran explicitly states that Mohammed was not the only Messenger God had sent; there were others.
As for KJ, he has such a personal investment in the NT specifically, that I doubt whether he can look at it as a book to be investigated like any other book. For him, it just isn't a book like any other book.
210d
@moonbus saidJosephw might be along this weekend to call me “an enemy of God” or an “apostate” or similar for asking such questions.
Well, to someone who hasn't any personal investment in the NT specifically, a rational-skeptic's answer is:
If God ever spoke to mankind, it is highly unlikely that He did so only once and only in Hebrew. It is much more probable that if God spoke to mankind, then it occurred to different peoples, in different dialects or other forms (burning brushes, blue elephants ...[text shortened]... ok to be investigated like any other book. For him, it just isn't a book like any other book.
I was brought up and taught the the Bible was indeed the complete, inerrant and exclusive word of God. And maybe it is.
But now I ask how does anyone know this? Someone taught my parent this, and someone taught those people and so on down into the past.
I think this is a perfectly reasonable question.
Edit: my faith is not impacted by my asking this question. My faith is NOT in the bible, although it is inspired by some of it.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4279
210d
@Suzianne saidWhen I first made the error of becoming a regular poster, I recall that divegeester and FMF were your steady dates, and over and over again they nagged you into steady exchanges of 'complementary' words. They say that love and hate stand so close to each other that at times it's hard to tell the difference.
The fact remains that the Most High has shed his blood for us. Because of this, those with faith KNOW. Those without faith, the very "faith of the mustard seed", merely ASK, over and over and over and...
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4279
@moonbus saidIt's not your "bad", really. Dive cherry-picks what he deems acceptable to his limited understanding. It's obvious that the New Testament lacks a stronger foundation than the Old Testament.
My bad. I took the question to be addressed to anyone with an interest in ancient sacred literature.
Dive chooses to accept everything told about Jesus, as prophesied in the Old Testament, and what is recorded about his teachings and actions, as the word of God. However, he rejects the rest.
Dive frequently seeks to engage biblical literalists from the Old Testament but overlooks that anyone discussing Jesus Christ, as he does and accepts, essentially practices New Testament literalism. He consistently fails to recognize that the Bible should be viewed as a whole, not picked apart selectively.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4279
210d
@moonbus saidWell, you might be closer to the truth when considering it from that angle. It's highly probable that God wouldn't confine His communication solely to the Hebrews. Moreover, summarizing the core message of major world religions reveals a consistent and unified theme. At its heart, this shared message from God is the the existence of an immortal soul, and an afterlife, the permanent abode for all souls. Earthly physical existence is a brief interlude on eternity road, just a mere break. A sort of coffee break, a moment to stop and rest from the eternal boredom of endless cyclic repetitions on our eternal carousel.
Well, to someone who hasn't any personal investment in the NT specifically, a rational-skeptic's answer is:
If God ever spoke to mankind, it is highly unlikely that He did so only once and only in Hebrew. It is much more probable that if God spoke to mankind, then it occurred to different peoples, in different dialects or other forms (burning brushes, blue elephants ...[text shortened]... ok to be investigated like any other book. For him, it just isn't a book like any other book.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4279
@divegeester saidWhere does your faith lie?
My faith is NOT in the bible, although it is inspired by some of it.
210d
@PettyTalk saidI’ll tell you when you tell me if you class yourself as being a Christian.
Where does your faith lie?
How’s that PettyTalk?
210d
@PettyTalk saidObsessed with me much PettyTalk?
Dive
Dive
Dive
You seem to think you know an awful lot about what I do and don’t accept 😄
@moonbus saidI have spelled out the number of copies written that are all in agreement with each other spread out over time and distance from each other if they were not coming from the same source they would not agree with each other, it isn't like today where they can write each other and compare text. That fact alone shows they came from the same source, not only from the writers of those texts but those who followed them who also were all saying the same thing.
Forget that the Bible is supposed to be the Word of God. Treat the Bible as you would any other ancient book, Homer or Aristotle or Plato: "What's the chain of custody?" That is the question any historian has to ask. Nine centuries gap back to the apostles is a long time, plenty of time for errors of copying and of translation to creep in.
Biblical scholars are in general ...[text shortened]... a credible chain of custody to the present day, he'd be pilloried in the academic world as a fraud.
210d
@divegeester saidYes, it is a perfectly reasonable question -- for a modern Christian. (I am repeatedly astonished at how many nominal Christians are ignorant of how their book actually came to be.) But for a Christian during the Dark Ages, to have asked this question would have earned you a non-optional 'enhanced interrogation' by the Inquisition and a BBQ at your own expense.
I was brought up and taught the the Bible was indeed the complete, inerrant and exclusive word of God. And maybe it is.
But now I ask how does anyone know this? Someone taught my parent this, and someone taught those people and so on down into the past.
I think this is a perfectly reasonable question.
Edit: my faith is not impacted by my asking this question. My faith is NOT in the bible, although it is inspired by some of it.
One can trace the history of the Christian Bible as far back the Council of Nicea, 325 CE. Farther back is not possible, due to the paucity of physical evidence (four scraps, as I said, are all that remain). So, how did they know (which of the hundreds of then-extant scrolls to canonize and which ones to reject)?
In the 2d c. CE, Bishop Irenaeus (google that) proposed a criterion, which Churches were genuine and which were fake. His proposed criterion was that any Church which could trace the lineage of its bishop back to one of the apostles was genuine; all others were fake (heretics). [It speaks volumes that already in the 2d c. somebody thought there were fake Christians!] This was the birth of the doctrine which would become known to posterity as Apostolic Succession. So, Bishop Irenaeus knew because his bishop taught him what his bishop taught him what his bishop taught him, and so on back to one of the apostles. This is the primary mode whereby the Will of God is revealed to man. The secondary mode whereby the Will of God is revealed to man is through the institution of Ecumenical Councils. Ecumenical Councils consist of meetings of bishops who can trace their lineage in an unbroken line back to one of the apostles. The Council of Nicea convened by Constantine in 325 CE was once such, and they determined which scrolls to canonize. No talk of the authenticity or inerrancy or completeness of the Bible gets any traction apart from these two, primary and secondary, modes whereby the Will of God is revealed to man. The Bible is tertiary; it's merely the menu, not the meal.
I am not making this stuff up. This is just plain Church history, available to anyone who cares to research Church history, and has been official Christian doctrine for 2,000 years.
Now, the upshot of this, in answer to your question, 'how does anyone know the Bible is what God really said?' is this: only the bishops knew this, the bishops who selected the canon. Everyone else just has to believe that God would not let those 4th c. bishops be deceived.
210d
@PettyTalk saidDon't insult me.
When I first made the error of becoming a regular poster, I recall that divegeester and FMF were your steady dates, and over and over again they nagged you into steady exchanges of 'complementary' words. They say that love and hate stand so close to each other that at times it's hard to tell the difference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yOPIDUnvss
210d
@moonbus saidYou are flat-out wrong on your facts, and you are unlikely to change.
Yes, it is a perfectly reasonable question -- for a modern Christian. (I am repeatedly astonished at how many nominal Christians are ignorant of how their book actually came to be.) But for a Christian during the Dark Ages, to have asked this question would have earned you a non-optional 'enhanced interrogation' by the Inquisition and a BBQ at your own expense.
One can tra ...[text shortened]... he canon. Everyone else just has to believe that God would not let those 4th c. bishops be deceived.
@moonbus saidNo one destroyed all of the copies and produced new ones, they took the copies and made choices on what was authentic and not. They didn't alter the text once it was accepted, they only weeded out text that they couldn't prove who wrote it among other criteria. Moreover, later texts were discovered that too could be compared to what they had, and nothing earth-shattering concerning errors was ever discovered. You got it in for priests, I don't care what your views about them are they are meaningless.
Yes, it is a perfectly reasonable question -- for a modern Christian. (I am repeatedly astonished at how many nominal Christians are ignorant of how their book actually came to be.) But for a Christian during the Dark Ages, to have asked this question would have earned you a non-optional 'enhanced interrogation' by the Inquisition and a BBQ at your own expense.
One can tra ...[text shortened]... he canon. Everyone else just has to believe that God would not let those 4th c. bishops be deceived.