Ye shall know the truth... absolute proof that the Bible is the word of God !

[RoadDebris]

Which is my point - a person can THINK they know the truth, but that has no effect on it ACTUALLY BEING the truth! A person can think that Calvinism is "truth", but that has no bearing on it actually BEING truth... I even gave you an example of science using rational thought and evidence - which does not PROVE that something is truth.

Are you getting this???

That you struggle with simple logic? Yeah, that was apparent some time ago. The subject was the truth and you immediately veered off on a tangent on discernment.

Grow up. I tire of the polemics. I think I'll just stick to the subject, which is your inability to prove that the writings of the NT were considered Scriptures immediately after they were penned...

Most reasonable people consider comments like "grow up" to be condescending and, ironically, a sign of immaturity.

And lastly, come off the balcony of your glass house if you're going to throw stones.

And, as I'm sure you're aware, many Catholics exhibit extreme superstition by claiming to see images of Mary in all kinds of things:
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/RootWeb/actual virgin mary grilled cheese sandwich.gif

As usual, you stray from the subject when you find you are at a loss. Are you able to even figure out what I am talking about???

Yes. You're making ignorant statements about the historicity of the Bible and backing them up with your unsupported claim to be a former historian, and all from a supercilious perspective.

Where did I say that the individual Bible letters were false???

You claimed there was no evidence that the 27 Books of the New Testament were accepted as scripture in the first century, as I asserted. That claim is false. There is evidence.

Where IS your proof that Philemon is from God, from Philemon internally????[/B]

First of all, I rarely use the word "proof." Proof is pretty subjective; I give you the O.J. Simpson murder trial jury. We do have evidence, however. We have pretty good evidence that apostle Paul was the author. We have evidence that the apostles actually were on a divine mission and could speak authoritatively. Further, Philemon was in wide circulation amongst believers by the first decade of the second century and it was recognized as scripture at that time. Given the distances involved and lack of electronic communications, it is most reasonable to conclude that Philemon and the other New Testament books referred to as scripture by Ignatius and others had been in circulation for some time before they were referenced by these writers.

Speaking of ignorant assertions:

Oh yea, the big circular argument - Philemon is part of the Word of God because the Word of God contains Philemon....

Again, and I'll type this slowly for you, we have evidence that Paul was the writer (e.g. Ignatius) and we also have evidence that Paul spoke authoritatively for the Holy Spirit. While it may be true that you have nothing but blind faith to support your belief in Philemon as bona fide epistle, those who are actually knowledgeable on the subject have genuine evidence to back up their faith.

Which NT writer claims to be writing inspired Scriptures as they write them???

Paul delineates the difference between his opinion and the commands given to him God in 1 Cor. 7.

John claims his writings are from God in Revelation:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must s place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who testifies oon taketo everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. - Rev. 1:1-2

How 'bout 1 Thessalonians? Ever hear of that book? In it Paul claims to speak for God. Need a link?

Where is the internal evidence that a particular letter is "THE WORD OF GOD"???

Internal: Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier and to the church that meets in your home - Philemon 1:1-2

Your claim that all letters and books were recognized "immediately" as God's Word is rubbish. Anyone who has a basic knowledge of the formation of the canon would laugh at such a notion - it is fantasy.

You have a basic Catholic indoctrination on the canonization of scripture. That's the real rubbish. Since all but two of the books of the New Testament were referenced as scripture by Clement, Ignatius, and/or Polycarp between 95 and 110, those with an open mind can see that there is evidence of the New Testament's early acceptance.

No, its not. Philemon is never cited by Ignatius. Again, you are mistaken.

Ignatius references Onesimus in his letter to the Ephesians.

You mistake the existence of "Philemon" as proof that it is Sacred Scriptures. Another fine example of your "logic", the circular argument that "proves" everything...

No, I'm just aware of it's early acceptance by the Church (i.e. believers).

There is a process that Philemon undergoes BEFORE it is considered that. Merely citing a writing is not proof of it being Sacred Scriptures in the eyes of the writer. Paul cited pagan writings. Jude cites Jewish Apocrypha. Come on, this is just another example of your "begging the question"...

No, the objective authority on the matter is not subject to councils of men.

Yea, you are full of wisecracking assumptions... My response here is an attempt to sift through them and perhaps you can get some education on history and the development of the acceptance of the writings that LATER became called "Scriptures" by the Catholic community.

From the guy who didn't know John claimed his writing was inspired, that means so much. No, really.

For the final time... What does this have to do with the Contents of Sacred Scriptures??? What does the Decalogue have to do with deciding whether 1 Maccabees or Amos belongs in the Bible???

Did God not give ten commandments to Moses? If the answer is yes then your assertion that men must meet to decide whether a writing is divinely inspired is proven wrong. Your absolute claim is proven to have at least one exception and is therefore false. Simple logic.

Geez... Like I said, dealing with people who live on emotion is like running your head into the wall. Where is all of that vaunted "logic" you talk about???

Your denouncement of emotionalism through your expressed exasperation is typical of the hypocrisy you display here. Sad.

Go read up on the subject "Deuterocanonicals". It would save me a lot of time and you a lot of embarassment...

And perhaps you could bone-up on 1 Thessalonians. It's in the...wait for it...Bible.

 

[reba]

Get and polite and keep it polite!

 

[Eventide]

His words are Spirit and they are life.. and they're for ever settled in heaven..

 

[francisdesales]

That you struggle with simple logic? Yeah, that was apparent some time ago. The subject was the truth and you immediately veered off on a tangent on discernment.

Wow, you are an angry young man, aren't you...

I'll tell you what, I'll respond to the stuff that has something to do with the topic, you may continue to attack my person, if you feel that will win you points from the audience or from on High...

You claimed there was no evidence that the 27 Books of the New Testament were accepted as scripture in the first century, as I asserted. That claim is false. There is evidence.

I have called for it, but yet to receive this "evidence"...

We have evidence that the apostles actually were on a divine mission and could speak authoritatively. Further, Philemon was in wide circulation amongst believers by the first decade of the second century and it was recognized as scripture at that time.

You have not read Ignatius, have you. It is relatively clear to me that you haven't, and are basing your "argument" upon a circular argument, mentioning Ignatius because you heard it from some Calvinist tract or some other source that you never checked for yourself. We shall soon see what Ignatius actually says, to prove that.

Unfortunately, you are just "begging the question". Merely repeating the premise is not an argument. Now. First, Philemon is a PERSONAL LETTER. We have no evidence that Philemon was widely made available during the second century. Nor do we have ANYONE who makes this statement that it is Scriptures from the first decade of the second century. NO ONE, including Ignatius, cites Philemon, or even mentions it...

Do you really believe that there is only ONE Onesimus that existed in the first century??? Apparently, it is a common name, it means "profitable" or "useful". There is another gentleman with the same derivative of a name in the Bible, Onesiphorus, which also means "bringing profit". Interesting, both are from Ephesus, both joined Paul in Rome, and Onesiphorus has likely died in 2 Tim 1:16-18. Orthodoxy states that Onesimus died in c. 68 AD. Perhaps Onesiphorus and Onesimon are the same person? Maybe. An argument could be made for this possibility.

It is unlikely that it is the same charecter of nearly 50 years apart, although there is a possibility.

It is highly questionable that we are dealing with the same person, but EVEN IF IT IS, let us actually look at what Ignatius SAYS about this Onesimus and see whether he makes YOUR claim!!!

And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Ignatius to the Ephesians, VI

I received, therefore,[8] your whole multitude in the name of God, through Onesimus, a man of inexpressible love, and your bishop in the flesh, whom I pray you by Jesus Christ to love, and that you would all seek to be like him. Ignatius to the Ephesians, I

THIS IS YOUR EVIDENCE, that Ignatius tells us that Philemon is Sacred Writ because he mentions a bishop named Onesimus??? :} PLEASE tell me this is not an example of your "logic and reasoning"...

You might as well tell me that you think that ALL APOCRYPHA is Sacred Scriptures because it also mentions the names of such heroes of the faith as Moses, Elijah, Enoch, Paul, Peter and Mary, ALL found in Protocanonical Scriptures!!!

Sorry, Road Debris, this is dead on arrival.

1. Philemon is never mentioned, nor is it even ONCE cited.
2. The Onesimus Paul is probably not the same person Ignatius mentions. Orthodox martyology makes the claim that the slave Paul mentions died in c 68 AD. Perhaps. But there is no solid connection here. But even if it is...
3. ...Ignatius makes absolutely NO mention or claim about Sacred Writ and a connection to Onesimus, Philemon, or even Paul's letter writing.

This is evidence of nothing but your inability to give me valid evidence.

John claims his writings are from God in Revelation:

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must s place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2who testifies oon taketo everything he saw—that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ. - Rev. 1:1-2

Agreed, as I mentioned before. This is the ONLY letter in the NT that has any sort of internal claim to be from God. Ironically, it is a letter that was NOT accepted as Scriptures for MANY years after the fifth century by the Eastern Orthodox...

Internal: Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, to Philemon our dear friend and fellow worker, to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier and to the church that meets in your home - Philemon 1:1-2

Says nothing about this letter being sacred scriptures or from God. Nothing like the formula "thus says the Lord" or anything like that... THis merely shows that Paul wrote it (although Paul did worry about forged letters...)

Since all but two of the books of the New Testament were referenced as scripture by Clement, Ignatius, and/or Polycarp between 95 and 110, those with an open mind can see that there is evidence of the New Testament's early acceptance.

Philemon was cited by NONE of these authors. And given your track record, I don't have the desire at the moment to prove you wrong on the rest of your claims.

Regardless, the EXISTENCE of writings does not mean that they were ACCEPTED as Sacred Scriptures by the community. At the earliest, I would have to go to Marcion and that incident in the mid second century to attempt to even MAKE such a claim with any force, for it was at this time that the Church was forced to BEGIN to even consider this question of "what is sacred and what is not".

The mere existence of a letter does not equate it to Sacred Scripture, this is again begging the question. The Didache, the First Letter of Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Letters of Ignatius all existed during the first half of the second century - some even considered THEM Scriptures.

This won't work for you, either...

Did God not give ten commandments to Moses? If the answer is yes then your assertion that men must meet to decide whether a writing is divinely inspired is proven wrong. Your absolute claim is proven to have at least one exception and is therefore false. Simple logic.

I am not seeing your logic. When Moses brings down the ten commandments, how does that make Amos or Isaiah or even Exodus as Sacred Scriptures? For the fourth time, what is the relevance? All it proves is that Moses brought down the Word of God from the Mountain. WHICH Christian thinks that Moses brought down the Bible, a la Koran???

Did Moses bring down an inspired Table of Contents for a future book that was not even written? And you call me names for wondering what the heck you are talking about?

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING proves that the first Christians had an idea that the CURRENT New Testament was the Word of God. It took years of use and recognition by the community to come to that point. That's the simple fact of the matter, and presenting untruths will not change that (Ignatius' supposed proof that Philemon is part of Sacred Scriptures)

I warned you and gave you an opportunity to save face... Oh well

 

[francisdesales]

Road Debris,

Here is further evidence that the entire NT was not considered "the Bible" for even into the third century AD, which I have yet to even bring up until now...

Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John...

....Ecclesiastical History 3.25

In other places, he also notes that many consider the Apocalypse and Hebrews as spurious writings. That is nearly 1/4 of the NT that is considered disputed.

This was written early in the FOURTH century, HUNDREDS of years after your "claim" about everyone knowing what was the NT Scriptures...

 

[RoadDebris]

Wow, you are an angry young man, aren't you...

Wow, second time you've responded with that in a row (different threads). Again, when people strongly disagree with you that doesn't mean they are angry. That you infer such a thing when your views are not accepted says a lot about your mind-set (IMO).

I'll tell you what, I'll respond to the stuff that has something to do with the topic, you may continue to attack my person, if you feel that will win you points from the audience or from on High...

Soo...you're reneging on your vow not to respond to me anymore? Lol.

Criticizing your views is not a personal attack. Evidently you are not used to having your assertions viewed in a critical manner. That's really unfortunate, but here in the arena of ideas that's the way it works. Maybe you should start a thread with a title like: "These Are My Assertions. Please Don't Respond Unless You Accept Everything I Say And Believe." Probably won't work, but you can give it a shot.

I have called for it, but yet to receive this "evidence"...

As I recall you demanded "proof." My inference is that you want evidence that fits with your preconceived ideas and does not challenge your Catholic indoctrination. That kind of subjective closed-mindedness is not subject to evidence.

You have not read Ignatius, have you. It is relatively clear to me that you haven't, and are basing your "argument" upon a circular argument, mentioning Ignatius because you heard it from some Calvinist tract or some other source that you never checked for yourself. We shall soon see what Ignatius actually says, to prove that.

Unlike you, I don't claim to be a scholar. I have read some of Ignatius' writing, but I am not an expert on the man. As to my "Calvinist" source, I first heard of Ignatius' connection with Onesimus through Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, neither of which are Calvinists as far as I know.

Unfortunately, you are just "begging the question". Merely repeating the premise is not an argument. Now. First, Philemon is a PERSONAL LETTER. We have no evidence that Philemon was widely made available during the second century. Nor do we have ANYONE who makes this statement that it is Scriptures from the first decade of the second century. NO ONE, including Ignatius, cites Philemon, or even mentions it...

In your world the writings of Paul my not necessarily be inspired, but he asserted that they were:

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. - 1 Thess. 2:13

As to the spread of the New Testament, including Philemon, the wide geographical area involved with the quotes from Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement combined with the rarity of printed material in the first century gives evidence of this fact. That the writing in question was authored by Paul, Peter, John gives evidence to it's inspired nature. That may not equate to "proof" in your world, but that says more about your view than on the actual state of affairs.

Do you really believe that there is only ONE Onesimus that existed in the first century??? Apparently, it is a common name, it means "profitable" or "useful". There is another gentleman with the same derivative of a name in the Bible, Onesiphorus, which also means "bringing profit". Interesting, both are from Ephesus, both joined Paul in Rome, and Onesiphorus has likely died in 2 Tim 1:16-18. Orthodoxy states that Onesimus died in c. 68 AD. Perhaps Onesiphorus and Onesimon are the same person? Maybe. An argument could be made for this possibility.

"Due to this epistle from Paul, Philemon indeed accepted Onesimus as a brother and freed him of slavery. Although it is doubted by some authorities, it may well be that this Onesimus was the same one consecrated a bishop by the Apostles and accepted the episcopal throne in Ephesus following the Apostle Timothy. During the reign of Roman emperor Domitian and the persecution of Trajan, Onesimus was imprisoned in Rome and martyred by stoning (although some sources claim that he was beheaded"
Onesimus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evidence, my friend. Evidence.

THIS IS YOUR EVIDENCE, that Ignatius tells us that Philemon is Sacred Writ because he mentions a bishop named Onesimus??? :} PLEASE tell me this is not an example of your "logic and reasoning"...

The evidence is that Philemon took Paul's letter as inspired, freeing his slave who then went on to become a leader of the Church.

Agreed, as I mentioned before. This is the ONLY letter in the NT that has any sort of internal claim to be from God. Ironically, it is a letter that was NOT accepted as Scriptures for MANY years after the fifth century by the Eastern Orthodox...

You know, for a guy with such a supercilious attitude you sure don't know very much about the Bible. Again, read 1 Thessalonians.

Says nothing about this letter being sacred scriptures or from God. Nothing like the formula "thus says the Lord" or anything like that... THis merely shows that Paul wrote it (although Paul did worry about forged letters...)

The evidence indicates that Paul's writings were inspired. You may choose to deny the validity of the evidence, but that says more about your view, one formed in the Gulag of Catholicism, than it does about what actually took place.

Philemon was cited by NONE of these authors. And given your track record, I don't have the desire at the moment to prove you wrong on the rest of your claims.

Unlike you, I don't make arguments from authority. Don't believe what I say because I say it. Check it out for yourself. Hopefully you will be led to have and open mind. I'm always hopeful for miracles.

I have to say though, that in light of your claim of being a former historian, your apparent lack of enthusiasm for history is telling. You don't care to look into it because of your distaste for me? That's a cop-out.

Regardless, the EXISTENCE of writings does not mean that they were ACCEPTED as Sacred Scriptures by the community. At the earliest, I would have to go to Marcion and that incident in the mid second century to attempt to even MAKE such a claim with any force, for it was at this time that the Church was forced to BEGIN to even consider this question of "what is sacred and what is not".

Again, the wide dispersion and quotations from Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp from New Testament books with they considered to be sacred at that early date is evidence of the integrity of the Bible.

I am not seeing your logic.

Given your disdain for the Law of Contradiction, I take that as an ironic endorsement.

When Moses brings down the ten commandments, how does that make Amos or Isaiah or even Exodus as Sacred Scriptures?

It doesn't, in and of itself. However, let's not move the goal posts here. You claimed our knowledge of the inspired nature of scripture is subject to blind faith. That is false. We have evidence that at least some scripture came from the very hand of God. You may not consider that relevant, but that says more about your twisted view of theology than it does about the historicity of the Bible.

Did Moses bring down an inspired Table of Contents for a future book that was not even written?

NEWS FLASH: the Bible is actually a collection of writings (i.e. "books").

Again, you're moving the goal posts. The evidence indicates that the Ten Commandments came from the hand of God himself. No council was held to verify the legitimacy of the two tablets. So your assertion that these councils are necessary is proven false. At least to rational people.

And you call me names for wondering what the heck you are talking about?

Careful. The last time you brought this up you were denying that you accused me of calling you names. Now you're asserting that I am once again. Ironically, your consistent in you inconsistency.

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING proves that the first Christians had an idea that the CURRENT New Testament was the Word of God.

Again, read 1 Thessalonians. It's in the...wait for it...Bible.

I warned you and gave you an opportunity to save face... Oh well

Unlike some (ahem!), I'm not posing as an expert. I just an average guy. No face to save. I'm not perfect or inerrant. Keep it real, if you are able.

 

[francisdesales]

Soo...you're reneging on your vow not to respond to me anymore? Lol.

Your anger is clouding your ability to read what I wrote. I said I wouldn't respond to your personal attacks and would only respond to attempts to address the topic.

Criticizing your views is not a personal attack.

That's not all you are doing. Read your posts again.

I have read some of Ignatius' writing...

And yet you have the gall to tell me, without reading Ignatius, that he vouched for the Scriptural status of Philemon??? The very fact that I gave you my background SHOULD have alerted you to the fact that at least I would read the source to check out what you were saying. Apparently, you never read anything from Ignatius that discusses Onesimus or Philemon - YET, in your bravado, tell me otherwise...

All the while telling me how my logic is poor, twisted, corrupted and am a blind follower of illogical Church. How ironic that you've come to this.

In your world the writings of Paul my not necessarily be inspired, but he asserted that they were:

And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. - 1 Thess. 2:13

"You have received the Word of God" is the teachings of Paul on the Gospel BEFORE 1 Thessalonians was even penned!!! This is not a statement that in Paul's mind, whatever he writes is on level with Exodus and Isaiah... It is only later that the Church community regards Paul's writings as inspired. There is no statement from Paul that refers to THIS writing (1 Thess) or any other writing. He is talking about the overall message of the Gospel.

As to the spread of the New Testament, including Philemon, the wide geographical area involved with the quotes from Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement combined with the rarity of printed material in the first century gives evidence of this fact.

Yet again, you provide no evidence to back up the claim. We don't know how wide-spread the letters of the Apostles were, nor do we know whether they considered them as "Sacred Scriptures". That, again, is a presumption based upon your already determined hypothesis. You cannot support your hypothesis. And merely stating it is not evidence of anything.

The third and fouth centuries gives us ample proof that there WAS NO SUCH unanimous presumption that you assume. The very fact that some books WERE disputed proves that you are incorrect. In addition, there are a number of writings that we don't consider Scriptures but WERE considered as such by some communities. First Clement to the Corinthians was considered Sacred Writ by the Corinthians well into the third century, for example.

That the writing in question was authored by Paul, Peter, John gives evidence to it's inspired nature.

I'm afraid not. Nor are you considered that forgeries existed, while there is numerous pieces of apocryphal works that claim to be made in the name of Peter, Paul, and John. Such authorship alone, thus, proves nothing.

"Due to this epistle from Paul, Philemon indeed accepted Onesimus as a brother and freed him of slavery. .."
Onesimus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evidence, my friend. Evidence.

Ugh. Wikipedia. Let's no even consider that you could have wrote that statement an hour ago and are now citing it as evidence... Let's look past that. Now, your evidence. Doesn't it provide the very doubt that you claim does not exist??? Thanks for providing more evidence that you are wrong..

Although it is doubted by some authorities, it may well be that this Onesimus was the same one consecrated a bishop

WHO doubts this? What authorities? Well, as it turns out, the Eastern Orthodox Church (who claim that the slave died in c. 68 AD and consider him a saint) and the Roman Catholic Church post 1970. I did not research what made the Roman Church agree with the Orthdox on this, but the fact remains that these are pretty powerful authorities who are providing the doubt as to whether Onesimus is even the same person.

Let's consider Ignatius' purpose for writing his letters to Ephesus. It is to exhort the Christians to remain faithful and to honor the bishop, obey him as if he was Christ. To challenge Christians to act like the saints of the first century, those who have gone to the Lord, as Ignatius was about to do in Rome. Now, doesn't it seem VERY STRANGE that Ignatius himself NEVER makes the connection between Onesimus and Paul? Wouldn't that be a GOLDEN opportunity to prove his point and to get the Christians to adhere to the Bishop Onesimus, as HERE, we have a LIVE witness to Paul! (according to you) SOMEONE who is even MENTIONED IN "Sacred Scriptures"??? It boggles the mind on why Ignatius would NOT exhort Christians by bringing up Onesimus' glorious past as a disciple of Paul and a subject of a letter of Scriptures!!!

No, I'm afraid it is highly unlikely that we are speaking of the same person - OR that Ignatius is simply not aware of Philemon at all and doesn't know of this relationship.

But of course, this is just a wild goose chase, since it has no bearing on the subject, whether Philemon is seen as Scriptures by Ignatius. Do you really think that mentioning someone from Philemon means that Ignatius thought this letter was Scriptures??? You might as well tell me that you also think that any mention of the Acts of Paul are ALSO sacred writ because they deal with St. Paul!!!

Sorry, this is dead on arrival.

You claimed our knowledge of the inspired nature of scripture is subject to blind faith.

ANOTHER red herring, since I never said such a thing! As a matter of fact, I said the opposite, that my background in history led me to accept the Scriptures as from God, based upon the witness of the Church and analysis of the writings and their acceptance by the community.

NEWS FLASH: the Bible is actually a collection of writings (i.e. "books").

LOL!!! Which destroys your entire thesis, if you were only able to listen rather than speak down to me and proclaim your hypothesis based upon "Road Debris said so"...

The evidence indicates that the Ten Commandments came from the hand of God himself. No council was held to verify the legitimacy of the two tablets. So your assertion that these councils are necessary is proven false.

ANOTHER red herring, since I said nothing about whether the Ten Commandments were not from God because they were never subject to a council...

At issue is whether each and every book found in our New Testament was widely and universally accepted immediately after being penned by the writer as Sacred Scriptures. This is categorically a ridiculous statement by you, an argument based upon absolutely no evidence. There is precious little to support your categorically universal acceptance of the entire contents of the New Testament.

Frankly, this shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of the available writings from even Protestant sources on the creation of the Canon. The very fact that 1/4 of the NT was considered "debated" by some in the third century should give you cause to re-analyze your presumptions.

Careful. The last time you brought this up you were denying that you accused me of calling you names. Now you're asserting that I am once again. Ironically, your consistent in you inconsistency.

Again, your anger is not allowing you to see what I actually wrote.

I said I did not understand your logic, nor your point as to the topic. I didn't say you were illogical (although you waste no opportunity to do that to me).

Unlike some (ahem!), I'm not posing as an expert. I just an average guy.

What is sad is that I warned you of my background, but said "average guy" attempted to bamboozle a ridiculous assertion based upon his "argument from wishful thinking" that Philemon was widely known as Scriptures at the turn of the second century without even bothering to actually read what Ignatius wrote!!!

 

[Eventide]

Since the church is comprised of men, and Paul says to let God be true and all men be liars.. then where's your confidence..?

If your confidence is in what men have said, then obviously there's a possibility that they're wrong.. unless of course you believe that the men in your church can't be wrong.

 

[stovebolts]

5 - Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities.

6 - No Bashing of other members. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

7 - Any personal problems with another member, then deal with it through private messages.

If we can't abide by the TOS, perhaps its time for a break...

There are ways to disagree and argue a point while staying within the TOS. If anyone feels they can't abide by the tos and insists upon breaching the tos, then expect further infractions. 3 infractions and your account could be suspended.

This has nothing to do with who's right and who's wrong. It has to do with how we maintain ourselves through our differences.

John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

 

[Eventide]

This thread should be more along the lines of the OT stories telling the story long before it ever came to pass.. and how that in the volume of the book it is written of Me..

Here's a wonderous portion from the gospel of Luke..

Then He said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself.

 

[AKJVReader]

"During a question and answer session at a recent speaking engagement, a university student asked me, "Why do you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God?" Now this is a very interesting question; and probably one of the most important questions any Christian could ask themselves. What is so special, so unique about the Bible that Christians believe it is literally the inspired word of God?
In answering this student's question, I encouraged him to consider the following facts about the Bible:
First, the Bible is not just one single book. This is a more common misconception than many people realize, especially with people who do not come from a Judeo-Christian background. Rather than being a single book, the Bible is actually a collection of 66 books, which is called the canon of scriptures. These 66 books contain a variety of genres: history, poetry, prophecy, wisdom literature, letters, and apocalyptic just to name a few.
Second, these 66 books were written by 40 different authors. These authors came from a variety of backgrounds: shepherds, fishermen, doctors, kings, prophets, and others. And most of these authors never knew one another personally.
Third, these 66 books were written over a period of 1500 years. Yet again, this is another reminder that many of these authors never knew or collaborated with one another in writing these books.
Fourth, the 66 books of the Bible were written in 3 different languages. In the Bible we have books that were written in the ancient languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic; a reflection of the historical and cultural circumstances in which each of these books were written.
And finally, these 66 books were written on 3 different continents: Africa, Asia, and Europe. Once again, this is a testament to the varied historical and cultural circumstances of God's people.
Think about the above realities: 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents. What's more, this collection of books shares a common storyline- the creation, fall, and redemption of God's people; a common theme- God's universal love for all of humanity; and a common message- salvation is available to all who repent of their sins and commit to following God with all of their heart, soul, mind and strength. In addition to sharing these commonalities, these 66 books contain no historical errors or contradictions. God's word truly is an amazing collection of writings!
After I had shared the above facts with this student, I offered him the following challenge: I said to him, "If you do not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, if you do not believe that the Bible is of a supernatural origin, than I challenge you to a test." I said to the student, "I challenge you to go to any library in the world, you can choose any library you like, and find 66 books which match the characteristics of the 66 books in the Bible. You must choose 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, written on 3 different continents. However, they must share a common storyline, a common theme, and a common message, with no historical errors or contradictions." I went on to say, "If you can produce such a collection of books, I will admit that the Bible is not the inspired word of God." The student's reply was almost instantaneous, he emphatically stated, "But that's impossible!"
"But that's impossible!" It truly is impossible, for any collection of human writings. However, the Bible passes this test. The Bible contains 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over 1500 years, in 3 different languages, on 3 different continents, with no historical errors or contradictions. The entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, bears the mark of Divine inspiration.
The next time you encounter someone who asks you why you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, try sharing this challenge with them. Better yet, don't wait until you're asked, just go ahead and share this challenge with a friend today. You don't even have to mention the Bible up front, just ask them if they think it would be realistic to assemble such a collection of books. After they say, "But that's impossible!" you've got a ready-made opportunity for sharing the truth of God's word with somebody!"


From:
Is the Bible the Inspired Word of God?

 

[Eventide]

Amen AKJV... imo there are limitless angles to this truth.

The simple stories have told the story over and over again.. and in the volume of the book it is written of Me says the LORD.

There is no other book (or collection of books) that is living and powerful.

 

[Eventide]

One of my favorite stories in the bible is the story of Rebekah...

After Abraham and Isaac came down from the mountain, and after Sarah's death, Abraham sent his eldest servent to find a bride for his only begotten son Isaac..

The story was written centuries before the church of God came into existence and yet it describes the process (and even the future aspects of it) to the T..

Only possible if you're GOD.

No other book is living and powerful like this..

Many in the world today live by another book, although they're all powerless and dead and not even worthy of comparison to the word of God.

 

[Eventide]

Eventide

The best we can have is opinions. "Truth" is absolute truth to whoever believes it. There are Catholics on this forum. They have no opinions. Only absolute truth. Truth that must be believed to be a Catholic. Just ask them. Not that it makes them any different from any other Christian faction.

BTW. Some Christian factions, such as the Catholic Church, believes the Church existed long before the first century. One Catholic writer said it began with Abel as the first believer who followed the commands of God.

FC

And of course you're no different.. you form your own opinions as to the scriptures.

 

[Former Christian]

Eventide

You said, "And of course you're no different.. you form your own opinions as to the scriptures."

Absolutely. And since all we have are opinions, a lot of different opinions, mine are just as good as yours, and yours are just as good as mine. I can only say that it is possible that what the Bible says may actually be objective truth. But what it plainly says is obviously not what people are believing. Everyone believes that the interpretation that they believe is the truth, the objective truth. And in Christianity, there are many objective truths. And that leaves nothing to base our eternal destiny upon unless we wish it to be so. That is why I am a

Former Christian

 

[Eventide]

Eventide

You said, "And of course you're no different.. you form your own opinions as to the scriptures."

Absolutely. And since all we have are opinions, a lot of different opinions, mine are just as good as yours, and yours are just as good as mine.

This is not true.. a person who studies the living and powerful word diligently and who has Christ in them can discern the spiritual word and be much closer to the truth than somebody like yourself..

I can only say that it is possible that what the Bible says may actually be objective truth. But what it plainly says is obviously not what people are believing. Everyone believes that the interpretation that they believe is the truth, the objective truth. And in Christianity, there are many objective truths. And that leaves nothing to base our eternal destiny upon unless we wish it to be so. That is why I am a

Former Christian

Truth doesn't change because of our opinion on it. Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures whether you or I have an opinion on it.

Obviously you were never born again by the incorruptible word of God..

Please don't destroy this thread with your sad commentary FC.. please go preach your Former SELF elsewhere.

 

[Former Christian]

Eventide

You said, “This is not true.. a person who studies the living and powerful word diligently and who has Christ in them can discern the spiritual word and be much closer to the truth than somebody like yourself.. ”

Than somebody like myself? You can say that with a straight face without even knowing anything about me or what my experiences have been?


You said, “Truth doesn't change because of our opinion on it. Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures whether you or I have an opinion on it.”

I agree that objective truth doesn’t change because of our opinions. And if Christ truly died for our sins, then I also agree that it is objective truth in spite of any opinion to the contrary.

You misunderstand what I said. The problem that I have with Christianity is not with the Bible or the God and the Son of God that it portrays. My problem is that Christianity has more than one opinion regarding objective truth, how the Bible is to be understood. Is that the fault of God, Jesus Christ or the Spirit? Is that my fault? Or is it the fault of men desiring to build institutions that agree with their own opinions?

Christianity is denominational, divisional, in nature. That is, there is more than one opinion as to what constitutes objective truth. And part of that denominational nature is to say, “our denomination is the only one that has the objective truth”. Catholics, at least, are very straightforward about it. The only unity they deem possible is in themselves. They are the true Church and all of the other groups are just denominations. That would tend to weed them out if it weren’t for the fact that just about every Protestant denomination has the same attitude. “You can’t take communion with us unless you submit to our doctrinal standard”. Which they think is the same as submitting to Jesus Christ and the Bible. The stupidity of this kind of thinking is sometimes realized when it regards another denomination, but not regarding their own denomination.

Is this how we are to treat others who are doing their best to understand objective truth? Or should we be tolerant of the beliefs of others who are Christians and help each other to achieve the common goal of understanding objective truth, at the same time realizing that we are limited in our ability to understand objective truth even with the help of the Spirit? Which is a sign of arrogance and which is a sign of humility?


You said, “Obviously you were never born again by the incorruptible word of God.. ”

You do not know whether or not I was ever born again or if I am now born again while honestly reacting to the denominational nature of Christianity. Just because I happen not to agree with your point of view has no bearing on whether or not I was ever born again. In fact, it is that kind of attitude, an attitude that is so very common among the Fundamentalistically minded, that initiated my present thinking. “You don’t agree with me, ergo you aren’t saved.” Only God knows my true condition. And unless you are God, you don’t.


You said, “Please don't destroy this thread with your sad commentary FC.. please go preach your Former SELF elsewhere.”

Well, your thinking is certainly in keeping with the Moderators of this forum. “We don’t like what you have to say, so go elsewhere and leave us alone”. In fact, they claim that I have broken some rule. But they have not yet deemed it necessary to show me the evidence. Apparently I am guilty until proven innocent, and they don’t want me to defend myself. That is not the attitude of one who believes in truth. It is the attitude of one who believes in opinions. And that is exactly the gist of the problem that I have with Christianity. Christianity is made up of divisions, of denominations, of institutions and individuals who believe in their opinions, their interpretations of the Bible, more than objective truth. And when this attitude is found among Protestants, it only proves that they don’t believe in their own claim of Sola Scriptura. Yet I have found that some who believe in opinions knows it instinctively inside. That may be something that you can blame on the Spirit. But they don’t want anyone around who may make them think about what the Spirit is telling them. How should we consider those who are dyed in the wool denominationalists? Jesus and Paul both plainly said that divisions on the order of what we see in Christianity should not be so. Paul even says division is something that is out of the flesh of men. Are you ready to bring me back into the fold by proving to me that this is only my opinion, that Jesus and Paul agree with the denominational nature of Christianity, that Jesus and Paul agree with the practice of Biblical interpretation that produced the denominations?

As far as me destroying this thread, that is impossible. Only the Moderators have the power to destroy a thread. I have said nothing flippant. Nor has it been my intention to destroy anyone's faith. Which are things that may cause a Moderator to destroy, that is, close a thread. Everything that I have said is truth as I presently understand it.

I am an Atheist at this point. And I am only responding according to what I am. If no one here cares enough to take the time to find out why, then surely I am in the wrong place. Christians are notably intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. You have other Atheists here, and even though the main emphasis of this forum is Protestant, you have Catholics here. One rather abrasive one to boot. I foresaw no problem such as has arisen.

With this post, I have made my case. It is now up to the Moderators. If I am not heard from again, then you will know that they have decided that opinions are more important to them than objective truth and understanding why I am the way I am is of no concern to them at all. It is my understanding that God desires all to be saved. Maybe the Christians here don’t think that is true or that it applies to me. The ball is now in the hands of the powers of this forum. I don’t like long posts. But I believe that this situation warrants one.

FC

 

[Eventide]

Eventide

You said, “This is not true.. a person who studies the living and powerful word diligently and who has Christ in them can discern the spiritual word and be much closer to the truth than somebody like yourself.. â€

Than somebody like myself? You can say that with a straight face without even knowing anything about me or what my experiences have been?

YES, than somebody like yourself who comes to a Christain forum with the name Former Christian.. obviously you're not a believer.. and you sound like the Devon person who did the same thing...

Why would you even bother to be here if you don't believe the bible.. ?

You said, “Truth doesn't change because of our opinion on it. Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures whether you or I have an opinion on it.â€

I agree that objective truth doesn’t change because of our opinions. And if Christ truly died for our sins, then I also agree that it is objective truth in spite of any opinion to the contrary.

You misunderstand what I said. The problem that I have with Christianity is not with the Bible or the God and the Son of God that it portrays. My problem is that Christianity has more than one opinion regarding objective truth, how the Bible is to be understood. Is that the fault of God, Jesus Christ or the Spirit? Is that my fault? Or is it the fault of men desiring to build institutions that agree with their own opinions?

So you abandon Christianity because everyone has an opinion including yourself ? That doesn't make much sense..

You said, “Obviously you were never born again by the incorruptible word of God.. â€

You do not know whether or not I was ever born again or if I am now born again while honestly reacting to the denominational nature of Christianity. Just because I happen not to agree with your point of view has no bearing on whether or not I was ever born again. In fact, it is that kind of attitude, an attitude that is so very common among the Fundamentalistically minded, that initiated my present thinking. “You don’t agree with me, ergo you aren’t saved.†Only God knows my true condition. And unless you are God, you don’t.

Yeah, I see it every day... people who have Christ in them calling themselves a FORMER CHRISTIAN... are you kidding me ?

If you were born again, why not say so ? You would know if Christ is in you wouldn't you ?

I've never met a Christian who would label themselves a FORMER CHRISTIAN while having the Spirit of Christ in them..

You said, “Please don't destroy this thread with your sad commentary FC.. please go preach your Former SELF elsewhere.â€

If you'd like to share how that the living and powerful word of God is undeniably the truth then that would be fine.. although it's painfully obvious that this is not your intent here.

 

[proveallthings]

You are confusing "truth" with "belief". And I am not advocating relativism...

All religious communities BELIEVE that their "scriptures" are from God. GOD HIMSELF doesn't come down and tell us "hey, this is my Word, this particular collection of books. Not those ones. Just these ones..." Thus, there is an element of faith that exists in determining the truth claims made by the variety of religions. WE trust that the Apostles gave us the truth of what happened at the tomb. Circumstances surrounding their witness give us a relative certainty that they were telling the truth. But that "truth claim" is based upon the witness of other people - and we weren't there.

When a person reads a set of Scriptures, whether the Koran, the Torah, or the Book of Mormon, a variety of factors will take place that for HIM, this book is "truth" or "not truth". That person will identify his decision as truth - and that is what is important to that person. Not finding the ever-elusive "PROOF", since it doesn't exist. And God doesn't desire that it does - He desires a man have faith in Him. Could not God infuse into everyone's mind that the Christian Scriptures are Truth and they need to seek no longer, offering unassailable certainty?

God allows an element of doubt to exist in everything. Thus, our faith, despite that doubt, our turning to Him, even when it doesn't seem He is active in the world and their are a variety of truth claims - is pleasing in His eyes.

Thus, the idea that the Scriptures are from God are based upon the communities' belief that they are from God. If they are from God, they are truth.

Regards

francisdesales, Your honesty is refreshing. However, the Bible indicates that there is a way to be certain. The first step is to "prove all things, hold fast that which is good". As we continue to seek for truth and never assume we have it all, and then follow our conscience, which is the Light of Christ, the light will get brighter. We must seek in order to find and we must seek from a space of faith, not fear. If we seek assurance of truth we will find it. We will find it as Peter did. "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." We all can find direct revelation from God as Peter did if we seek it, for Jesus himself said, "seek and ye shall find".

 

[AKJVReader]

It is incredible to think that even though the Bible is the world's number one best seller it is probably the most neglected, abused, and criticized book in history. Some see it as nothing more than a fiction or piece of fantasy. Others have tried to literally rid the world of as many Bibles as possible, such as some satanic groups, for example, who engage in "Bible burning". Others still, in the cults, twist the contents of this book for their own purposes. Despite this, the Bible remains as a remarkable book. It has changed the lives of millions throughout history. But How do we know the Bible is a reliable book? Can we examine any pointers that actually indicate that the Bible is truly what it even claims to be, the inspired Word of God? Let us take a look at the Bible witnesses enlisted in this video:

YouTube - ‪How do we know the Bible is God's Word?‬‏

1. Bible Unity

2. The Fulfillment of Bible prophecies

3. The Historicity of the Bible

4. The Integrity of its human authors

5. The Indestructibility of the Bible

6. Scientific accuracy

7. The Bible changes life

8. Skeptics have been convinced