zeke
Member
'Mob mentality'---what does that mean, exactly? What do you do about the all of the historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth died, was buried and appeared to many people on many different occasional after his tomb was found empty?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
A Cultural Bible
- Thread starter Former Christian
- Start date
Former Christian
Member
Zeke
Kind a came in on the middle of that one didn't ya? Read more. You may find that I'm on your side after all.
FC
Kind a came in on the middle of that one didn't ya? Read more. You may find that I'm on your side after all.
FC
zeke
Member
New poster - have to come in somewhere.
Are we on the same page - the historical evidence supports the truth that Jesus of Nazareth died, was buried and appeared to many people on many different occasional after his tomb was found empty?
Former Christian
Member
Zeke
The NT says it’s true. That’s the only direct historic evidence there is. If you’re a Protestant and believe the bible alone is the inerrant Word of God, then you believe the bible, that is your interpretation of it. If you’re a Roman Catholic, then you believe what “the Church†tells you, that is the Church’s interpretation of it.
In the view I present, the bible isn’t the Word of God, Jesus is. The bible alone is just dead letters of long dead writers. Thus the bible must have something other than itself to give it life. The Roman Catholic Church says that itself as “the Church†is that something. The Protestant says by its claim that it’s the reader or the Bible teacher that gives it life. In the view I present, it’s Jesus who gives the bible life through the Holy Spirit. Jesus teaches the bible through the Holy Spirit. If that which is taught by Jesus is interpreted, the teaching is no longer the teaching of Christ. It becomes an interpretation and eventually a Tradition of men if widely accepted.
If you’re looking for physical proof for a biblical event, you’ll find whatever you’re looking for. The Christian will find proof for and the Atheist will find proof against. Just like physical proof for the existence of God, it’s worthless because the proof will be understood according to the limitations and biases of the individual.
Thomas believed because of physical evidence. This is what Jesus said to him.
John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
(NIV)
Surely you have noticed how Christians don’t all understand the bible alike. Ergo, something more is needed than just the bible as a physical historical record. Something supernatural is needed. When you first came to believe, did you believe because someone told you it was true, or because something inside told you it was true? Did you start by the Spirit only to be perfected by the flesh?
If the supernatural exists, the natural isn’t the only way to know or understand truth. Christians tend to forget that.
FC
The NT says it’s true. That’s the only direct historic evidence there is. If you’re a Protestant and believe the bible alone is the inerrant Word of God, then you believe the bible, that is your interpretation of it. If you’re a Roman Catholic, then you believe what “the Church†tells you, that is the Church’s interpretation of it.
In the view I present, the bible isn’t the Word of God, Jesus is. The bible alone is just dead letters of long dead writers. Thus the bible must have something other than itself to give it life. The Roman Catholic Church says that itself as “the Church†is that something. The Protestant says by its claim that it’s the reader or the Bible teacher that gives it life. In the view I present, it’s Jesus who gives the bible life through the Holy Spirit. Jesus teaches the bible through the Holy Spirit. If that which is taught by Jesus is interpreted, the teaching is no longer the teaching of Christ. It becomes an interpretation and eventually a Tradition of men if widely accepted.
If you’re looking for physical proof for a biblical event, you’ll find whatever you’re looking for. The Christian will find proof for and the Atheist will find proof against. Just like physical proof for the existence of God, it’s worthless because the proof will be understood according to the limitations and biases of the individual.
Thomas believed because of physical evidence. This is what Jesus said to him.
John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
(NIV)
Surely you have noticed how Christians don’t all understand the bible alike. Ergo, something more is needed than just the bible as a physical historical record. Something supernatural is needed. When you first came to believe, did you believe because someone told you it was true, or because something inside told you it was true? Did you start by the Spirit only to be perfected by the flesh?
If the supernatural exists, the natural isn’t the only way to know or understand truth. Christians tend to forget that.
FC
zeke
Member
There are sources outside of NT and the historical probability of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ are so high that it is considered a historical certainty.
You are mistaken FC - the word of God is living and powerful. It is not dead.
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb 4:12 NKJV)
Former Christian
Member
Zeke
Extra-biblical sources are hearsay at best. And the certainty of historical probability depends on the bias of who you talk to.
That Heb 4:12 refers to the bible is a common point of view among Protestants determined to make the bible into something it isn’t. Into a supernatural force in its own right. But the context is clear. The word of God in this verse refers to Jesus Christ, not the bible.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two–edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.
14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
(NKJV)
Verse 13 rightly translates the pronoun “his†(his sight), a masculine pronoun in the Greek. If this was referring to the bible, it wouldn’t be masculine. This portion goes on to talk about the great High Priest. The bible isn’t in that position.
The word in verse 12 would be neutral if it referred to the bible or the speaking of God, not masculine as it is here. Like word in the following verse is neutral:
Ro 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
And the meaning is clear by the context. Unless it’s interpreted to mean something else.
Hebrews 1:
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
(NKJV)
Don’t confuse these matters all together as if they’re interchangeable. The bible is a tool that has its source in God. That doesn’t give the bible life, as if it’s a person. The bible is still a tool with a definite purpose for the last two millennia. To be used by Jesus Christ to teach the ones who are in Christ through the Holy Spirit. And apart from that supernatural utilization, the bible is being wrongly used. When men see fit to interpret the bible, it’s being used as a tool by the interpreters. That’s bad enough. It’s when the interpreters and their interpretations become authoritative that the trouble really begins. The practice of bible interpretation changes the meaning of the bible, as is most clearly seen in the denominational divisions of Christianity.
The bible alone is dead as a doornail. It will either be used improperly by bible interpreters, or it will be rightly used by Jesus Christ. And if you think that biblical interpretation is the legitimate way to understand the bible, then you’re going to have to acknowledge the necessity for an authoritative bible interpreter. While there are many bible interpreters that are authoritative without acknowledging themselves to be so, because they realize that such an acknowledgement nullifies the idea of bible alone; there is one denomination that openly claims to have an authoritative bible interpreter. It is unhindered by the idea of bible alone because it doesn’t adhere to the idea of bible alone. The Roman Catholic Church.
In the view I present, the bible alone is dead letters written by long dead men. The bible needs something other than itself to give it life. That will either be the authoritative bible interpreters that teach the Traditions of men, or it will be Jesus Christ who teaches and properly uses the bible to teach through the Holy Spirit.
The choice is quite simple really. The natural life of human bible interpreters or the supernatural life of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. One can try to claim a mixture of both, but in the end they will only have the Traditions of men. And the only thing following the Traditions of men proves, in whatever Christian denomination they choose, is that such followers in practicality believe the bible can’t ever be anything more than dead letters by long dead men, and the supernatural has no real existence. Is there any logical reason to give that kind of witness to the Atheists?
FC
Extra-biblical sources are hearsay at best. And the certainty of historical probability depends on the bias of who you talk to.
That Heb 4:12 refers to the bible is a common point of view among Protestants determined to make the bible into something it isn’t. Into a supernatural force in its own right. But the context is clear. The word of God in this verse refers to Jesus Christ, not the bible.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two–edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are naked and open to the eyes of Him to whom we must give account.
14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.
16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
(NKJV)
Verse 13 rightly translates the pronoun “his†(his sight), a masculine pronoun in the Greek. If this was referring to the bible, it wouldn’t be masculine. This portion goes on to talk about the great High Priest. The bible isn’t in that position.
The word in verse 12 would be neutral if it referred to the bible or the speaking of God, not masculine as it is here. Like word in the following verse is neutral:
Ro 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
And the meaning is clear by the context. Unless it’s interpreted to mean something else.
Hebrews 1:
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
(NKJV)
Don’t confuse these matters all together as if they’re interchangeable. The bible is a tool that has its source in God. That doesn’t give the bible life, as if it’s a person. The bible is still a tool with a definite purpose for the last two millennia. To be used by Jesus Christ to teach the ones who are in Christ through the Holy Spirit. And apart from that supernatural utilization, the bible is being wrongly used. When men see fit to interpret the bible, it’s being used as a tool by the interpreters. That’s bad enough. It’s when the interpreters and their interpretations become authoritative that the trouble really begins. The practice of bible interpretation changes the meaning of the bible, as is most clearly seen in the denominational divisions of Christianity.
The bible alone is dead as a doornail. It will either be used improperly by bible interpreters, or it will be rightly used by Jesus Christ. And if you think that biblical interpretation is the legitimate way to understand the bible, then you’re going to have to acknowledge the necessity for an authoritative bible interpreter. While there are many bible interpreters that are authoritative without acknowledging themselves to be so, because they realize that such an acknowledgement nullifies the idea of bible alone; there is one denomination that openly claims to have an authoritative bible interpreter. It is unhindered by the idea of bible alone because it doesn’t adhere to the idea of bible alone. The Roman Catholic Church.
In the view I present, the bible alone is dead letters written by long dead men. The bible needs something other than itself to give it life. That will either be the authoritative bible interpreters that teach the Traditions of men, or it will be Jesus Christ who teaches and properly uses the bible to teach through the Holy Spirit.
The choice is quite simple really. The natural life of human bible interpreters or the supernatural life of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. One can try to claim a mixture of both, but in the end they will only have the Traditions of men. And the only thing following the Traditions of men proves, in whatever Christian denomination they choose, is that such followers in practicality believe the bible can’t ever be anything more than dead letters by long dead men, and the supernatural has no real existence. Is there any logical reason to give that kind of witness to the Atheists?
FC
zeke
Member
Really? The historical record tells us Jesus died on a Roman cross - is that 'hearsay'?
The historical record is what it is. Do you include your own dogmatic bias or are you exempt from bias?
No confusion - the Bible is exactly what the Hebrew writer has stated – *the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword*. If you want to believe it is a compilation of dead letters then so be it but you do not have Holy Writ on your side.
There you go again – your word vs. God's word---*the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword*. I'll go with God's word.
Yes, quite, And you have made the wrong choice.
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb 4:12)
Former Christian
Member
Zeke
What historical record are you referring to?
I already covered this. If the bible is some kind of mystical book to you, I won’t waste my time trying to show you otherwise. You have to explain why this mystical book says different things to different people.
Now, what was your opinion again concerning the idea that the biblical writers were affected by their culture and times? Go back and read some of the posts of Drew and Stromcrow before you answer.
FC
What historical record are you referring to?
I already covered this. If the bible is some kind of mystical book to you, I won’t waste my time trying to show you otherwise. You have to explain why this mystical book says different things to different people.
Now, what was your opinion again concerning the idea that the biblical writers were affected by their culture and times? Go back and read some of the posts of Drew and Stromcrow before you answer.
FC
Your position must explain the same.
The problem isn't with the Bible itself and certainly not in believing what it says about "being living and powerful." A large part of the problem is that the events of the NT happened 2000 years ago, in a culture far removed from ours, in a language that is no longer used and contains many spiritual truths which even the NT church had problems understanding. Based on those things, the fallen nature of man and all the life experiences and biases the reader has in approaching Scripture, it's no wonder that the Bible that "says different things to different people."
smaller
Member
A big bingo there Free, if that's your statement. I noticed a quote mark at the end so not sure, but the observation is that sin really hasn't changed culturally all that much except maybe to morph into the system upgrades we have today and has come out more into the open.
Sin in the Garden just grew along with the population.
s
zeke
Member
Annals XV ~ CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.)
Whether you 'waste your time' or not the truth remains – the Bible is exactly what it claims to be – the revealed word of God given to His creation. It says the same thing to ALL people for ALL time. Some folks simply misunderstand --- intentionally or unintentionally --- what God reveals.
The writers of the Bible were the product of their culture but they were guided/inspired by the Holy Spirit – thus Holy Writ is a cohesive unity and is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.†This was true in the first century, it is true today and it will be true "until He comes again".
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
(2Ti 3:16)
(2Ti 3:16)
Former Christian
Member
Free
Don’t know what you meant by this.
Summary:
Pro
1 The bible itself is not at fault with regard to how it is understood.
1a The bible is a stand alone book of truths. (added from previous post)
2 The bible is living and powerful.
3 The bible is inspired by the Spirit, which may or may not imply that the Spirit has anything to do with understanding the bible. (added from previous posts) (perhaps needs to be clarified by another bible reference)
Con
1 With reference to the NT, the events recorded happened 2000 years ago.
2 The NT is written in a dead language, a language no longer used.
2a The NT writers wrote according to the venue of their own culture with its own set of biases. Thus it would be beneficial to know the Jewish mindset of the 1st century, the mindset of the Roman conquerors, the mindset of the Greek philosophers of the era. And in Paul’s case, the mindset of the many cultures he passed through on his missionary journeys who may have influenced him. As well as the Jewish mindset of the various eras recorded in the OT that the NT writers referred to. (added from previous posts)
3 The NT contains Spiritual truths, that even those to whom the NT was written had trouble understanding. (Being as in the first century the first two items wouldn’t have applied, this needs to be expanded upon.)
4 The fallen nature of man hinders understanding of the NT. To clarify, this can refer to all the assorted limitations of fallen man, but here primarily to sin in the flesh.
4a Also under the category of fallen man, the reader (of any era) carries his own biases due to personal experiences (education, peer pressure, whatever) into his understanding of the NT.
4b Also under the category of fallen man, the mind of the reader (of any era) is limited as to capability, some more than others.
5 Satan influences the human mind to misunderstand the bible. (added from previous post)
6 There is the matter of determining (and who determines) how much of the bible applies to the 21st century believer, and thus limits the amount of the bible that actually needs to be understood. (added from previous posts)
Is anything missing?
FC
Don’t know what you meant by this.
Summary:
Pro
1 The bible itself is not at fault with regard to how it is understood.
1a The bible is a stand alone book of truths. (added from previous post)
2 The bible is living and powerful.
3 The bible is inspired by the Spirit, which may or may not imply that the Spirit has anything to do with understanding the bible. (added from previous posts) (perhaps needs to be clarified by another bible reference)
Con
1 With reference to the NT, the events recorded happened 2000 years ago.
2 The NT is written in a dead language, a language no longer used.
2a The NT writers wrote according to the venue of their own culture with its own set of biases. Thus it would be beneficial to know the Jewish mindset of the 1st century, the mindset of the Roman conquerors, the mindset of the Greek philosophers of the era. And in Paul’s case, the mindset of the many cultures he passed through on his missionary journeys who may have influenced him. As well as the Jewish mindset of the various eras recorded in the OT that the NT writers referred to. (added from previous posts)
3 The NT contains Spiritual truths, that even those to whom the NT was written had trouble understanding. (Being as in the first century the first two items wouldn’t have applied, this needs to be expanded upon.)
4 The fallen nature of man hinders understanding of the NT. To clarify, this can refer to all the assorted limitations of fallen man, but here primarily to sin in the flesh.
4a Also under the category of fallen man, the reader (of any era) carries his own biases due to personal experiences (education, peer pressure, whatever) into his understanding of the NT.
4b Also under the category of fallen man, the mind of the reader (of any era) is limited as to capability, some more than others.
5 Satan influences the human mind to misunderstand the bible. (added from previous post)
6 There is the matter of determining (and who determines) how much of the bible applies to the 21st century believer, and thus limits the amount of the bible that actually needs to be understood. (added from previous posts)
Is anything missing?
FC
zeke
Member
Yes -
- The Bible was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit and as such it is a cohesive unity.
- The Bible is as applicable to us today as it was to those in the first century.
- The Bible is “profitable for instruction in righteousness".
- The basic principles of God's word regarding what one must do to be saved are easily understood by anyone who seeks His truth.
- We are not required by God to understand all that has been revealed.
Former Christian
Member
Zeke
When I first read the bible, I read it as a document on its own merit. No thought of cultural influence or any other kind of influence. Something inside (that I now believe to be the Spirit/spirit connection) said that what the bible said is true. I was converted on that basis. Thus I have no need for extra-biblical sources telling me whether or not it’s content is true. I knew of Josephus and one other I can’t remember the name of presently. It just didn’t matter. It does seem to matter to Roman Catholics especially, and apparently to many Protestants who believe in the doctrine of bible alone. The former I can understand. Their whole religion is based on history. But Protestants? Protestants who claim that the bible is the only authority for faith and practice? What need have they for extra-biblical sources telling them that the bible they already believe in is legitimate.
Nevertheless, it’s not like I have no interest whatsoever. But be known that the only reason I have interest is because brethren have an interest. I didn’t know of Tacitus. I’ve copied the document in question and several articles of like interest. Will need time to evaluate.
That is my contention as well. But there are those who say there’s more to it than that.
And that’s where the question comes in. Why? Why do, not only well meaning staunch Christians, but educated Christians understand the bible differently? I think some of why is being brought out in this thread.
Then, to what degree do think culture influenced this revelation, and to what degree do you think the Holy Spirit influenced this revelation?
Addition:
In regard to your last post, how would you add these items into the list I proposed?
FC
When I first read the bible, I read it as a document on its own merit. No thought of cultural influence or any other kind of influence. Something inside (that I now believe to be the Spirit/spirit connection) said that what the bible said is true. I was converted on that basis. Thus I have no need for extra-biblical sources telling me whether or not it’s content is true. I knew of Josephus and one other I can’t remember the name of presently. It just didn’t matter. It does seem to matter to Roman Catholics especially, and apparently to many Protestants who believe in the doctrine of bible alone. The former I can understand. Their whole religion is based on history. But Protestants? Protestants who claim that the bible is the only authority for faith and practice? What need have they for extra-biblical sources telling them that the bible they already believe in is legitimate.
Nevertheless, it’s not like I have no interest whatsoever. But be known that the only reason I have interest is because brethren have an interest. I didn’t know of Tacitus. I’ve copied the document in question and several articles of like interest. Will need time to evaluate.
That is my contention as well. But there are those who say there’s more to it than that.
And that’s where the question comes in. Why? Why do, not only well meaning staunch Christians, but educated Christians understand the bible differently? I think some of why is being brought out in this thread.
Then, to what degree do think culture influenced this revelation, and to what degree do you think the Holy Spirit influenced this revelation?
Addition:
In regard to your last post, how would you add these items into the list I proposed?
FC
zeke
Member
You misunderstand – God validates/legitimizes His word – we study history as a window into the past that provides understanding of the human condition.
Sectarian biases.
Holy Spirit –100%. But God spoke to man in man's cultural parlance.
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
(Heb 1:1-2)
(Heb 1:1-2)
What I mean is that it is not only our position which must explain why the Bible says different things to different people; your position must as well. Whether one believes the Bible is "mystical," taken to mean that in some sense it is active, or whether one believes "the bible alone is dead as a doornail," or something else, all positions must explain why different people come to different understandings. This is not a problem exclusive to one position alone.FC said:
If you mean missing from what I said, I don't think so, but it is rather late for me and I may not have read it well enough.FC said:
My point, obviously, was that there are numerous reasons why the Bible says different things to different people. It could be any combination of the reasons I gave or one or more reasons that I did not think of.
Stormcrow
Member
Here's a simple, brief illustration (in letter form) of the point (in honor of Valentine's Day):
"Dear John,
I love you.
Debra."
That short little letter can "speak" to anyone in many ways, though it was written to only one person.
Understanding the point that the Bible was not written to us, living in 21st century America, but can "speak" to us is hardly more complicated than that.
Former Christian
Member
Zeke
Some think the bible without the help of extra-biblical sources is sufficient to provide understanding of the human condition. Which seems reasonable unless one thinks that history is a part of God’s word in some way. Which seems to me would make what appears to be extra-biblical, not actually extra-biblical at all. And since the extra-biblical says loads of different things, that would pretty much legitimize, not only the denominational character of Christianity, but the various philosophies and religions of the world as well.
Sect “a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.â€
Wouldn’t that pretty much include everyone in the same category of sectarian? After all, each denomination and individual with a different viewpoint, from the perspective of Christianity, and of each other, could be considered just a exactly what the definition above says of them. Which in turn would of necessity legitimize the existence of denominations and the various individuals with a different viewpoint. Or that maybe things aren’t as supernatural as they seem.
Doesn’t that leave us back where we started? While Spirit inspired the bible, it was only to those to whom it was written and the rest of us have to make do with whatever we can discern? Kind of makes me feel a bit outcast like, feeding on the crumbs of food belonging to someone else. Makes me think that maybe its reasonable to maybe get off our duffs and go find our own food.
I’m not sure how to add these points to my original list. It seems to me that your points 1, 3, and 4 would fit in with the Pro part well enough. But I have a problem with 2 and 5. Your number 2 appears to be a refutation of the points on the Con side of the list. While on the other hand, your number 5 appears to agree with the Con side of the list.
FC
Some think the bible without the help of extra-biblical sources is sufficient to provide understanding of the human condition. Which seems reasonable unless one thinks that history is a part of God’s word in some way. Which seems to me would make what appears to be extra-biblical, not actually extra-biblical at all. And since the extra-biblical says loads of different things, that would pretty much legitimize, not only the denominational character of Christianity, but the various philosophies and religions of the world as well.
Sect “a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong.â€
Wouldn’t that pretty much include everyone in the same category of sectarian? After all, each denomination and individual with a different viewpoint, from the perspective of Christianity, and of each other, could be considered just a exactly what the definition above says of them. Which in turn would of necessity legitimize the existence of denominations and the various individuals with a different viewpoint. Or that maybe things aren’t as supernatural as they seem.
Doesn’t that leave us back where we started? While Spirit inspired the bible, it was only to those to whom it was written and the rest of us have to make do with whatever we can discern? Kind of makes me feel a bit outcast like, feeding on the crumbs of food belonging to someone else. Makes me think that maybe its reasonable to maybe get off our duffs and go find our own food.
I’m not sure how to add these points to my original list. It seems to me that your points 1, 3, and 4 would fit in with the Pro part well enough. But I have a problem with 2 and 5. Your number 2 appears to be a refutation of the points on the Con side of the list. While on the other hand, your number 5 appears to agree with the Con side of the list.
FC
Former Christian
Member
Free
In the view I present, the reason is simple. Human nature. The denominational character of Christianity is due to its human nature. And the view presented by the NT is contrary to the nature and character of Christianity. Not only as it exists today, but as it has existed overtly since the fourth century.
Naturally, those who call themselves Christian and consider themselves to be a part of Christianity, out of necessity, don’t, indeed can’t, agree with this view. They must find some other reason that doesn’t harm what they believe to be the body of Christ. Because in their eyes, Christianity and the Body of Christ is synonymous, either literally, or Christianity is the only possible expression of the Body of Christ on the earth.
But in the view that I present, that would be an admission that the Body of Christ has no other existence than as a creation of a religion of men. An admission that the bible was indeed created and compiled by men. Not saying that Christians believe either. And that any help by the supernatural in that regard would be mythical. Not saying Christians believe that either. Just how it would appear to the view I present.
I was referring to the list I made up. I summarized the matters you listed and added in a few items brought up in the past on this thread. I was asking if I missed anything. Zeke, for example, thinks I missed at least five points.
FC
In the view I present, the reason is simple. Human nature. The denominational character of Christianity is due to its human nature. And the view presented by the NT is contrary to the nature and character of Christianity. Not only as it exists today, but as it has existed overtly since the fourth century.
Naturally, those who call themselves Christian and consider themselves to be a part of Christianity, out of necessity, don’t, indeed can’t, agree with this view. They must find some other reason that doesn’t harm what they believe to be the body of Christ. Because in their eyes, Christianity and the Body of Christ is synonymous, either literally, or Christianity is the only possible expression of the Body of Christ on the earth.
But in the view that I present, that would be an admission that the Body of Christ has no other existence than as a creation of a religion of men. An admission that the bible was indeed created and compiled by men. Not saying that Christians believe either. And that any help by the supernatural in that regard would be mythical. Not saying Christians believe that either. Just how it would appear to the view I present.
I was referring to the list I made up. I summarized the matters you listed and added in a few items brought up in the past on this thread. I was asking if I missed anything. Zeke, for example, thinks I missed at least five points.
FC
Former Christian
Member
Stormcrow
Seems to me that if the bible was written to us in the sense of the example you gave, that maybe how we might think it speaks to us wasn’t any of our business. Wouldn’t one be considered a little off a readin someone else’s mail?
I suggest that maybe your simplification isn’t quite as simple as it seems if there’s a supernatural involved.
How do you factor in the inspiration of the bible, that the bible is profitable for instruction on that account, the common idea in Evangelical Christianity that the bible is the Word of God and as such is living and powerful? How do you answer the contention that the bible is as applicable today as it was to those in the first century.
FC
Seems to me that if the bible was written to us in the sense of the example you gave, that maybe how we might think it speaks to us wasn’t any of our business. Wouldn’t one be considered a little off a readin someone else’s mail?
I suggest that maybe your simplification isn’t quite as simple as it seems if there’s a supernatural involved.
How do you factor in the inspiration of the bible, that the bible is profitable for instruction on that account, the common idea in Evangelical Christianity that the bible is the Word of God and as such is living and powerful? How do you answer the contention that the bible is as applicable today as it was to those in the first century.
FC