Is the Bible the word of God?

[Free]

I find your statement mystifying, no, staggering! Christians created The Bible, not the other way around. It contains many wonderful things and certainly should not be thrown out or ignored, just read in context.

Early Christians wrote the words of the NT and eventually formed the canon but my whole point was that if Scripture wasn't inspired, then we should throw it out or ignore it. If the Bible is merely the words of men, then they have no authority and are no better than any other words of men. There would be no orthodoxy, hence no heresy, and Jesus can be whomever and whatever any given person wants him to be. Hence, there would be no salvation and no such thing as Christianity. It is quite a rational conclusion so I'm not sure how you can find that mystifying or staggering.

Christianity existed long before The Bible

It existed a fair while before the canon of Scripture was finalized, but not before most of the books were written.

and the word 'Christianity' means far more than just following The Bible.

Such as? Christians are those who are followers of the true Christ, but apart from the Bible, we can't even know who the true Christ is.

Ask the thousands of slaughtered Cathar Christians, Arian Christians, Lollard Christians etc as well as all the nontrinitarians who never accepted the man-made concept of the homoousios nature of God.

But all that just begs the question as to whether they were Christians in the first place. Jesus is the central figure of the entirety of Scripture, upon whom salvation hinges. So we simply cannot believe whatever we want about the nature and works of Jesus and think that we are saved. Claiming to be a Christian and follower of Christ does not mean that one is.

The attempt to create just ONE version of Christianity failed. There are hundreds of different denominations and many different versions of The Bible. Even The Creed has various different versions.

Well, there are thousands of different denominations but I don't see what your point is. There are reasons--some legitimate, some not--for the numerous denominations and versions of the Bible, but this does not mean that there are no core doctrines that one must believe in order to be a true Christian.

 

[Isambard]

Early Christians wrote the words of the NT and eventually formed the canon but my whole point was that if Scripture wasn't inspired, then we should throw it out or ignore it. If the Bible is merely the words of men, then they have no authority and are no better than any other words of men. There would be no orthodoxy, hence no heresy, and Jesus can be whomever and whatever any given person wants him to be. Hence, there would be no salvation and no such thing as Christianity. It is quite a rational conclusion so I'm not sure how you can find that mystifying or staggering.

What I found staggering was your statement, "If the Bible isn't inspired, then there is no such thing as Christianity and we should throw the Bible out or just ignore it", when we know full well that Christianity existed for hundreds of years before The Bible. To deny those people including many martyrs the right to call themselves Christians seems bizarre in the extreme. We know that 'Christianity' was banned in the Roman Empire, for a while, and also that The Bible was written at the orders of a Roman Empire.

It existed a fair while before the canon of Scripture was finalized, but not before most of the books were written.

Christianity can be said to have existed before any of the New Testament was written. The oldest know gospel is AD74, if I remember correctly, by which time 'Christianity' was, say, 60 years old and spreading all over the Eastern Mediterranean and even to Rome.

Such as? Christians are those who are followers of the true Christ, but apart from the Bible, we can't even know who the true Christ is.

'Christianty' is indeed following Christ - "follow me". How can you possible say that no one knew the true Christ. Some indeed may have got the wrong story but why on Earth would you assume that everyone was wrong. What about the people who compiled The Bible, are you saying that they didn't know the true Christ? Think on that a little longer before you dismiss pre-Bible Christians.

But all that just begs the question as to whether they were Christians in the first place.

A fair comment for some, undoubtedly but, for reasons given above, by no means all.

Claiming to be a Christian and follower of Christ does not mean that one is.

And that applies today as much as it ever did.

 

[for_his_glory]

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Our Bible is composed of the letters the Prophets, Disciples and Paul wrote within their time here on Earth.

 

[Isambard]

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Our Bible is composed of the letters the Prophets, Disciples and Paul wrote within their time here on Earth.

Exactly so for_his_glory Thanks very much for pointing that out. That was hundreds of years before The Bible was compiled.


I hope you are reading this 'Free' and I hope you are not going to insist that Acts 11:26 is wrong and they weren't really Christians?

Coming from Britain, where Christianity is still enshrined in our government system, we tend to be wary of anyone claiming that there is only one way. Britain has seen much religious persecution and discrimination, some of which lead to the Pilgrim Fathers setting off to settle in the American Colonies. When the colonials revolted and declared independence (illegally:wink) this new country, America, very wisely kept religion OUT of government yet it now seems to be a country where people often insist that their beliefs are the only true beliefs. That seems a very odd claim to most of us Brits. We tend to be more open to alternative ideas.

 

[Free]

Early Christians wrote the words of the NT and eventually formed the canon but my whole point was that if Scripture wasn't inspired, then we should throw it out or ignore it. If the Bible is merely the words of men, then they have no authority and are no better than any other words of men. There would be no orthodoxy, hence no heresy, and Jesus can be whomever and whatever any given person wants him to be. Hence, there would be no salvation and no such thing as Christianity. It is quite a rational conclusion so I'm not sure how you can find that mystifying or staggering.

What I found staggering was your statement, "If the Bible isn't inspired, then there is no such thing as Christianity and we should throw the Bible out or just ignore it", when we know full well that Christianity existed for hundreds of years before The Bible. To deny those people including many martyrs the right to call themselves Christians seems bizarre in the extreme.

Yes, I know what you found staggering and I explained why it isn't staggering but rather a rational conclusion. What I have been addressing were your following comments:

"Many of us are not fundamentalists. Many do not believe that The Bible is all fact nor even that it was divinely inspired. Many believe it to be a collection of scrolls put together for political purposes. Many are happy to have a vague belief that Jesus was a wonderful example to us all - without necessarily accepting everything that appears in The Bible - whichever version you happen to choose. As I said earlier, I doubt there are any two Christians that believe exactly the same things."

You seem to think that there are actually true Christians who believe that the Bible was not divinely inspired and that some believe Jesus was merely a "wonderful example". The logical outcome of such thinking is that anyone can believe whatever they want about God, Jesus and his death and resurrection, etc., and still be a Christian. But this is patently absurd since Jesus himself states the way is narrow and the rest of the NT proceeds to show how and why, including that there are certain beliefs one must hold to be a Christian.

Your argument that "Christianity existed for hundreds of years before The Bible" is misleading. Most of the books of the Bible, the OT, existed long before Christianity and the rest within 70 years of the start of Christianity, which is negligible. All the NT books were widely circulated among the early churches and were already held to be authoritative Scripture just like the OT books. The NT itself makes the claim that at least some of the Apostolic writings were Scripture (2 Pet 3:16) and that all Scripture is God breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

So the early church had the direct teachings of the Apostles while they were alive and they had the earliest NT writings which were already considered divinely inspired Scripture. And even then, early Christians still fell into error.

So then I am left scratching my head wondering just how it is that people can believe whatever they want about Jesus (the central figure of the entirety of Scripture on whom salvation hangs)and the Bible (the sole source of knowledge for the Christian), and still be considered Christian, as you imply. That goes against the very teachings of the Bible itself and it simply isn't rational.

and also that The Bible was written at the orders of a Roman Empire.

No, not at all. The books of the NT were written beginning around 50 AD and completed before 100 AD, having been written by either the Apostles or close associates. The books of the OT are obviously much older. The canon of Scripture was finalized in 397 AD at a Council of Carthage, if my memory serves me correctly. However, the development of the canon took around 200 years, for good reason.

Christianity can be said to have existed before any of the New Testament was written. The oldest know gospel is AD74, if I remember correctly, by which time 'Christianity' was, say, 60 years old and spreading all over the Eastern Mediterranean and even to Rome.

Of course Christianity existed before any of the NT was written, but not by much, and it certainly would have died out without the NT books. Some of your other statements need significant correction though.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/resources/guide-to-bible-study/order-books-new-testament.html

You can see that while Luke has a date of 63 AD, there are eleven books which predate it, going all the way back to 50 AD. And, no, Christianity was not in existence for 60 years by 74 AD, that's impossible. That would mean Jesus was about 14 years old when Christianity began. Jesus didn't begin his ministry until about 30 AD and ascended around 33 AD. So if we look at the first book written in the NT, James, we see that it is dated around 50 AD, which is about 17 years after Christ's ascension.

'Christianty' is indeed following Christ - "follow me". How can you possible say that no one knew the true Christ. Some indeed may have got the wrong story but why on Earth would you assume that everyone was wrong. What about the people who compiled The Bible, are you saying that they didn't know the true Christ? Think on that a little longer before you dismiss pre-Bible Christians.

And I think you need to re-read what I wrote before you erroneously claim that I have said "no one knew the true Christ" or how I have even implied it.

And that applies today as much as it ever did.

It sure does.

 

[for_his_glory]

Exactly so for_his_glory Thanks very much for pointing that out. That was hundreds of years before The Bible was compiled.


I hope you are reading this 'Free' and I hope you are not going to insist that Acts 11:26 is wrong and they weren't really Christians?

Coming from Britain, where Christianity is still enshrined in our government system, we tend to be wary of anyone claiming that there is only one way. Britain has seen much religious persecution and discrimination, some of which lead to the Pilgrim Fathers setting off to settle in the American Colonies. When the colonials revolted and declared independence (illegally:wink) this new country, America, very wisely kept religion OUT of government yet it now seems to be a country where people often insist that their beliefs are the only true beliefs. That seems a very odd claim to most of us Brits. We tend to be more open to alternative ideas.

Isambard it was many years after that the Bible was written by many scribes that took those original letters and compiled them into a book which is called the Bible. We are told in scripture to prove the words written as we apply them to ourselves to see God work in us and through us as the Holy Spirit will teach us truth, John 14:26; 1John 2:27 . We have a personal relationship with Christ as we have all come to him in various fashions and it's up to us as an individual to learn what is truth from error, 1John 4:1-8.

2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 

[Obadiah]

Yes, I know what you found staggering and I explained why it isn't staggering but rather a rational conclusion. What I have been addressing were your following comments:

"Many of us are not fundamentalists. Many do not believe that The Bible is all fact nor even that it was divinely inspired. Many believe it to be a collection of scrolls put together for political purposes. Many are happy to have a vague belief that Jesus was a wonderful example to us all - without necessarily accepting everything that appears in The Bible - whichever version you happen to choose. As I said earlier, I doubt there are any two Christians that believe exactly the same things."

You seem to think that there are actually true Christians who believe that the Bible was not divinely inspired and that some believe Jesus was merely a "wonderful example". The logical outcome of such thinking is that anyone can believe whatever they want about God, Jesus and his death and resurrection, etc., and still be a Christian. But this is patently absurd since Jesus himself states the way is narrow and the rest of the NT proceeds to show how and why, including that there are certain beliefs one must hold to be a Christian.

Your argument that "Christianity existed for hundreds of years before The Bible" is misleading. Most of the books of the Bible, the OT, existed long before Christianity and the rest within 70 years of the start of Christianity, which is negligible. All the NT books were widely circulated among the early churches and were already held to be authoritative Scripture just like the OT books. The NT itself makes the claim that at least some of the Apostolic writings were Scripture (2 Pet 3:16) and that all Scripture is God breathed (2 Tim 3:16).

So the early church had the direct teachings of the Apostles while they were alive and they had the earliest NT writings which were already considered divinely inspired Scripture. And even then, early Christians still fell into error.

So then I am left scratching my head wondering just how it is that people can believe whatever they want about Jesus (the central figure of the entirety of Scripture on whom salvation hangs)and the Bible (the sole source of knowledge for the Christian), and still be considered Christian, as you imply. That goes against the very teachings of the Bible itself and it simply isn't rational.


No, not at all. The books of the NT were written beginning around 50 AD and completed before 100 AD, having been written by either the Apostles or close associates. The books of the OT are obviously much older. The canon of Scripture was finalized in 397 AD at a Council of Carthage, if my memory serves me correctly. However, the development of the canon took around 200 years, for good reason.


Of course Christianity existed before any of the NT was written, but not by much, and it certainly would have died out without the NT books. Some of your other statements need significant correction though.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/resources/guide-to-bible-study/order-books-new-testament.html

You can see that while Luke has a date of 63 AD, there are eleven books which predate it, going all the way back to 50 AD. And, no, Christianity was not in existence for 60 years by 74 AD, that's impossible. That would mean Jesus was about 14 years old when Christianity began. Jesus didn't begin his ministry until about 30 AD and ascended around 33 AD. So if we look at the first book written in the NT, James, we see that it is dated around 50 AD, which is about 17 years after Christ's ascension.


And I think you need to re-read what I wrote before you erroneously claim that I have said "no one knew the true Christ" or how I have even implied it.


It sure does.

Thank you for a rational, true, and logical explanation of how our Christian scriptures came about as well as what constitutes (and does NOT constitute) a real and true Christian!

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ (Jesus, Matthew 21-23.)

 

[Isambard]

Yes, I know what you found staggering and I explained why it isn't staggering but rather a rational conclusion.

What you actually did was try to subtly change your original statement and justify your revised statement rather than the original but no matter - let as put that behind us as it is the sort of thing Christians used to kill each other over.

I accept and will rely here the Wikipedia definition of 'fundamentalist'. You may like to propose a different definition. Like it or not, the MAJORITY of Christians are NOT fundamentalists. You, and this web-site, are, according to that definition, fundamentalists. I am not. Fortunately we can each choose to believe whatever we want to believe but I accept that I am not allowed, on this web-site, to challenge the inerrancy of The Bible. I am therefore treading very carefully and simply explaining a little of my beliefs.

the development of the canon took around 200 years, for good reason.

Fortunately, this is a matter where we have some very clear facts and it took nothing remotely like that long. The Bible was compiled on the clear written orders of the Emperor specifically to stop inter denominational Christian fighting. He continually urged speed and steered the council towards the denomination of his wife and her bishop. He even proposed, or at least supported the notion of, the homoousios nature of God. These are matters of history and his letters to the council do still exist with no challenges to their authenticity .

If you want to argue that it took 200 years including several revisions, then just maybe you have a point but then you have to explain why an 'inspired text' should ever have been revised! :wink

And I think you need to re-read what I wrote before you erroneously claim that I have said "no one knew the true Christ" or how I have even implied it.

I'm afraid you have forgotten your own words again Free. You said, "Christians are those who are followers of the true Christ, but apart from the Bible, we can't even know who the true Christ is." However, I am glad to see that you have changed your mind on that too. You obviously feel than an open mind is a good thing too.

 

[Obadiah]

It seems pretty clear that the issue this thread has drifted to is whether the Bible is the word of God or just a collection of writings put together by men for their own agenda. (Even though I thought that was a prohibited subject here!) Most understand that when we speak of the inspired inerrant word of God, we are speaking of the original manuscripts which were in existence long before 325AD when the first council of Nicaea took place (especially the Old Testament manuscripts), but which we no longer have available either now or in 325 AD. I think it is only a few uninformed who take this to mean that any particular translation of copies of those original manuscripts that we have today is what is being referred to as the inerrant word of God. A cursory understanding of the various translation techniques and improvements in those techniques over time easily accounts for different wording in various translations. Yet none of those different wordings changes the core doctrines of the Christian Church (except to those who just want to exaggerate them for arguments sake). To suggest that Christian scripture did not exist before 325 AD is not only false but is ludicrous. This is an argument that has been used many times by those who want to discredit Christianity (sometimes disguising themselves as "sheep" in the process of leading Christians astray) based on a false premise that the Bible is nothing more than a made up book that supported some emperor's political agenda. These are common falsehoods that have been spreading on the internet and believed by the uninformed for some time now.

It amazes me how easily some people can believe that if someone (anyone) wrote it on the internet it must be true, and conversely if a person doesn't point to a URL on the internet to support their facts, they must be wrong. That's really a sad commentary on our society.

 

[WIP]

There seems to be some misunderstanding so I would like to add some clarification. The A&T (Apologetics & Theology) forum is where discussion of this type is to be placed. The word apologetics is defined by Merriam-Webster as...
Definition of APOLOGETICS
1: systematic argumentative discourse in defense (as of a doctrine)
2: a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity

There is no prohibition against questioning what we believe so long as it is done with kindness and respect.

Doing so requires that the question be backed up with scripture. Opinions mean very little if anything at all.

What is prohibited on this site is to declare something as truth when it violates our SoF.
"We believe that the Bible is inspired by God in its entirety, and is without error in the original autographs, a complete and final written revelation from God."

Our SoF clearly says the Bible is inspired by God, is fact, and is inerrant and to declare otherwise is a violation of our ToS 2.1.
6) Anti-Christian content will be considered a hostile act. (ToS 2.1)
This is a Christian site, therefore, any attempt to put down Christianity (or declare it false) and the basic tenets of our Faith is against the purpose of this site.

It is permitted to make a statement that disagrees with this so long as the poster makes it clear that it is his/her own understanding and does not declare it to be truth. Examples:
"I believe....?"
"The way I understand....?"
"How do you reconcile this with....?"

The whole purpose of this A&T forum is not to win arguments and prove others' fallibility (we all know we're fallible) but properly divide scripture to help each understand the truth and grow in our faith. It's when posters begin to take the podium and preach what is in conflict with the SoF that problems arise and posts are edited or removed.

From the sticky at the beginning of this forum, Posting and Answering...:
When posting or answering posts in this section, users are asked to state clearly what the theological subject is, and why it is true or not true. Questions can be asked regarding the theology or the apologetic defense for the theology.

Here's a link to the rules found at the beginning of this forum; Forum Policies and Rules.

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

 

[reba]

What you actually did was try to subtly change your original statement and justify your revised statement rather than the original but no matter - let as put that behind us as it is the sort of thing Christians used to kill each other over.

had you really wanted to put ,your thinking of, this behind you would not have posted the above line.

 

[Isambard]

..............To suggest that Christian scripture did not exist before 325 AD is not only false but is ludicrous. .........................
It amazes me how easily some people can believe that if someone (anyone) wrote it on the internet it must be true, and conversely if a person doesn't point to a URL on the internet to support their facts, they must be wrong.

Hello again Obadiah

I really did intend leaving this web-site when that 'morality' thread had run its course but sadly it has been moved here - which has delayed my departure a little - but fear not, I am going.

I will not follow it any further here but before I go, I did just want to say how wholeheartedly I agree with your statements above. It is self evident that both scripture and Christians existed long before 325AD, only a fool would claim otherwise. It is also self evident that what is written on the web and in books has to be accepted only with great care and discretion, only a fool would do otherwise.

I particularly wanted to confirm my agreement as I fear we had some petty misunderstandings/disagreement earlier.

Farewell

 

[Isambard]

had you really wanted to put ,your thinking of, this behind you would not have posted the above line.

I guess you are saying that I should have let Free have the last word - even though he/she was wrong. Yes, I suppose I could have done that . I do like facts and honesty though.

Bye Reba, I'm not coming back here so you can now say anything you like. I only replied to this one as you posted at the same time I was writing my last post.

 

[Free]

What you actually did was try to subtly change your original statement and justify your revised statement rather than the original but no matter - let as put that behind us as it is the sort of thing Christians used to kill each other over.

I didn't try to change anything, subtly or otherwise.

the development of the canon took around 200 years, for good reason.

Fortunately, this is a matter where we have some very clear facts and it took nothing remotely like that long. The Bible was compiled on the clear written orders of the Emperor specifically to stop inter denominational Christian fighting. He continually urged speed and steered the council towards the denomination of his wife and her bishop. He even proposed, or at least supported the notion of, the homoousios nature of God. These are matters of history and his letters to the council do still exist with no challenges to their authenticity .

Evidence please.

If you want to argue that it took 200 years including several revisions, then just maybe you have a point but then you have to explain why an 'inspired text' should ever have been revised! :wink

Let's look at the facts:

The first "canon" that came out was of that by Marcion. In it he excluded the entire OT and most of what we know as the NT--including Matthew, Mark, and John. What he left behind was edited and changed to fit his erroneous theology. http://www.ntcanon.org/Marcion.shtml

That "canon" is precisely why the Church decided it was necessary to have a formal canon containing the accepted and inspired writings--it was necessary to counter heresy. The first known bit of "canon," dated to the late second century, is referred to as the "Muratorian Canon" or "Muratorian Fragment". Another "canon" was written by Eusebius around A.D. 323. The list of biblical books to which the term "canon" was first applied was written by Athanasius in A.D. 367. The final list for canon was determined at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397.

So you can see that I am quite correct in that the process took about 200 years. There were certain criteria used to determine which books to include and which to exclude--apostlicity, catholicity, orthodoxy, and inspiration. So yes, of course there were discussions and disagreement about what to include in the canon, but for obvious reasons, this needed to be a lengthy process so that no rash decisions were made.

And I think you need to re-read what I wrote before you erroneously claim that I have said "no one knew the true Christ" or how I have even implied it.

I'm afraid you have forgotten your own words again Free. You said, "Christians are those who are followers of the true Christ, but apart from the Bible, we can't even know who the true Christ is." However, I am glad to see that you have changed your mind on that too. You obviously feel than an open mind is a good thing too.

Right, I am well aware of what I said. However, in what I stated above is there not even an implication that "no one knew the true Christ." I have not changed my mind on anything, rather all my subsequent posts have been explaining what I meant by my initial statement, which I still stand by.

Please follow along:

As I have already stated, the early Church had the Apostles present with them to teach them correct doctrine and practice. Some of the Apostles and close associates of the Apostles wrote letters addressing certain problems and laid out proper Christian beliefs, under the inspiration of God. These letters have become the books of the Bible, which all Christians after the time of the Apostles have used for proper Christian teaching and belief, since that was their point in the first place.

In the Bible, from OT to NT, Jesus is the central figure and the one upon whom our salvation hangs. Since there are no other writings that have been inspired by God, there are no other books outside of the Bible in which we can get to know the person and works of Jesus.

So, as I have stated already, if Scripture wasn't inspired, then we should throw it out or ignore it. If the Bible is merely the words of men, then they have no authority and are no better than any other words of men. There would be no orthodoxy, hence no heresy, and Jesus can be whomever and whatever any given person wants him to be. Apart from the Bible, we can't even know who the true Christ is. Hence, there would be no salvation and no such thing as Christianity.

As anyone can see, I have not changed my position, subtly or otherwise, but rather have, IMO, explained it fairly clearly.

 

[Free]

I guess you are saying that I should have let Free have the last word - even though he/she was wrong. Yes, I suppose I could have done that . I do like facts and honesty though.

You made some claims which you did not back up and some which were proven wrong. You think I'm wrong because you are not at all understanding what I am saying. You say you like facts and honesty but you are the one who didn't get the facts right and then ignored facts when they were presented.

And here I thought you were open-minded.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Good morning everyone. My latest relapse did not kill me... yet, so, maybe, I'm back up to snuff.

Isambard,
If you have not played silly and taken your toys and gone home, please, don't do that! The problem you're having is with your, misdirected, point of view. The Bible was written and Canonized before Jesus was ever born. The Bible, in the versions printed for use by the Christian, today, is the first 39 books, the Old Testament. The addition of the 27 books, letters, whatever, was not done by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Catholics tried to add the books found between the Old And the New found in their version of the scriptures and rejected by God and all of Hus people, including a good number of Catholics. My view of the Scriptures, the Word of God, is, much, in alignment with the Messianic Christians. My view also aligns with what the Son of God did.

The Bible is the book or the scripts Jesus taught from and commented on. Again, that is the first 39 books of the Christian versions. This makes the letters and books of the New Testament the only God ordained Life Application Commentary on the Bible. It is a record of what Je3sus, the Christ, taught His disciples and the people of how to apply the scriptures to our. every day, lives.

May God bless, my friend.

 

[The Gospels]

yes, in timothy I think.. Paul wrote... All scripture is God-Breathed, useful for teaching rebuking... etc