Christianity
- Thread starter Veteran1990
- Start date
- Oct 7, 2018
- 9,660
- 7,879
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Is all this from Bart Ehrman ?Christianity
If you are lazy this post is not for you
Isince i have been here apparently aggravated certain people despite God himself seeming completely fine with someone Evaluating The Scriptures:
1.) and examined the Scriptures(U) every day to see if what Paul said was true.
I would assume that if the pattern of those who came into Contact with the apostles were not rebuked or met with such aggravation from the apostles, where God has no problem with Testing Scripture that it is paradoxically uncalled for, when Scripture is Tested for christians to respond aggressively or insinuate things about my person.
Based on what it does say in The Bible, The Bible is open to Scrutiny to which God Himself has no problem.
MY EVALUATION OF SCRIPTURE:
From Everything I have heard, Studied on my own in the form of an anthropology of The Bible, Examining its compilation, and based on verses I have Still decided to Truth God while allowing for myself to question and Examine everything said or stated by every Biblical author to ensure and determine they even knew anything about God.
In my Studies I have found large internal inconsistencies and literary problems that I can not ignore and can not do anything but question because of such problems.
1.) Overview of The Bibles Compilation and Historical Analysis:
Based on analysis and research
OLD TESTAMENT
The Old Testament is the first section of the Bible, covering the creation of Earth through Noah and the flood, Moses and more, finishing with the Jews being expelled to Babylon.
The Bible | HISTORY
HEZIKIAH
It was during the reign of Hezekiah of Judah in the 8th century B.C. that historians believe what would become the Old Testament began to take form, the result of royal scribes recording royal history and heroic legends.
During the reign of Josiah in the 6th century B.C., the books of Deuteronomy and Judges were compiled and added. The final form of the Hebrew Bible developed over the next 200 years when Judah was swallowed up by the expanding Persian Empire.
SEPTUIGENT
Following conquest by Alexander the Great, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek in the 3rd century B.C.
Known as the Septuagint, this Greek translation was initiated at the request of King Ptolemy of Egypt to be included in the library of Alexandria. The Septuagint was the version of the Bible used by early Christians in Rome.
The Book of Daniel was written during this period and included in the Septuagint at the last moment, though the text itself claims to have been written sometime around 586 B.C.
NEW TESTAMENT
The New Testament tells the story of the life of Jesus and the early days of Christianity, most notably Paul’s efforts to spread Jesus’ teaching. It collects 27 books, all originally written in Greek.
The sections of the New Testament concerning Jesus are called the Gospels and were written about 40 years after the earliest written Christian materials, the letters of Paul, known as the Epistles.
Paul’s letters were distributed by churches sometime around 50 A.D., possibly just before Paul’s death. Scribes copied the letters and kept them in circulation. As circulation continued, the letters were collected into books.
Some in the church, inspired by Paul, began to write and circulate their own letters, and so historians believe that some books of the New Testament attributed to Paul were in fact written by disciples and imitators.
As Paul’s words were circulated, an oral tradition began in churches telling stories about Jesus, including teachings and accounts of post-resurrection appearances. Sections of the New Testament attributed to Paul talk about Jesus with a firsthand feeling, but Paul never knew Jesus except in visions he had, and the Gospels were not yet written at the time of Paul’s letters.
GOD GOSPEL
The oral traditions within the church formed the substance of the Gospels, the earliest book of which is Mark, written around 70 A.D., 40 years after the death of Jesus.
It is theorized there may have been an original document of sayings by Jesus known as the Q source, which was adapted into the narratives of the Gospels. All four Gospels were published anonymously, but historians believe that the books were given the name of Jesus’ disciples to provide direct links to Jesus to lend them greater authority.
Matthew and Luke were next in the chronology. Both used Mark as a reference, but Matthew is considered to have another separate source, known as the M source, as it contains some different material from Mark. Both books also stress the proof of Jesus’ divinity more than Mark did.
The Book of John, written around 100 A.D., was the final of the four and has a reputation for hostility to Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries.
All four books cover the life of Jesus with many similarities, but sometimes contradictions in their portrayals. Each is considered to have its own political and religious agenda linked to authorship.
For instance, the books of Matthew and Luke present different accounts of Jesus’ birth, and all contradict each other about the resurrection.
BIBLICAL CANON
Surviving documents from the 4th century show that different councils within the church released lists to guide how various Christian texts should be treated.
The earliest known attempt to create a canon in the same respect as the New Testament was in 2nd century Rome by Marcion, a Turkish businessman and church leader.
Marcion’s work focused on the Gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul. Disapproving of the effort, the Roman church expelled Marcion.
Second-century Syrian writer Tatian attempted to create a canon by weaving the four gospels together as the Diatessaron.
The Muratorian Canon, which is believed to date to 200 A.D., is the earliest compilation of canonical texts resembling the New Testament.
It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon. The books that eventually were considered canon reflect the times they were embraced as much the times of the events they portray.
During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, books not originally written in Hebrew but Greek, such as Judith and Maccabees, were excluded from the Old Testament. These are known the Apocrypha and are still included in the Catholic Bible.
Gnostic gospel
Additional Biblical texts have been discovered, such as the Gospel of Mary, which was part of the larger Berlin Gnostic Codex found in Egypt in 1896.
Fifty further unused Biblical texts were discovered in Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945, known as the Gnostic Gospels.
Among the Gnostic Gospels were the Gospel of Thomas—which purports to be previously hidden sayings by Jesus presented in collaboration with his twin brother—and The Gospel of Philip, which implies a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The original texts are believed to date back to around 120 A.D.
The Book of Judas was found in Egypt in the 1970s. Dated to around 280 A.D., it is believed by some to contain secret conversations between Jesus and his betrayer Judas.
These have never become part of the official Biblical canon, but stem from the same traditions and can be read as alternative views of the same stories and lessons. These texts are taken as indications of the diversity of early Christianity.
KING JAMES BIBLE
The King James Bible is possibly the most widely-known edition of the Bible, though in England it is known as the “Authorized Version.”
First printed in 1611, this edition of the Bible was commissioned in 1604 by King James I after feeling political pressure from Puritans and Calvinists demanding church reform and calling for a complete restructuring of church hierarchy.
In response, James called for a conference at Hampton Court Palace, during which it was suggested to him that there should be a new translation of the Bible since versions commissioned by earlier monarchs were felt to be corrupt.
King James eventually agreed and decreed the new translation should speak in contemporary language, using common, recognizable terms. James’ purpose was to unite the warring religious factions through a uniform holy text.
This version of the Bible was not altered for 250 years and is credited as one of the biggest influences on the English language, alongside the works of Shakespeare. The King James Bible introduced a multitude of words and phrases now common in the English language, including “eye for an eye,” “bottomless pit,” “two-edged sword,” “God forbid,” “scapegoat” and “turned the world upside down,” among many others.
MY PROBLEM WITH CANON
The books that make up the Bible were written by various people over a period of more than 1,000 years, between 1200 B.C.E. and the first century C.E. The Bible contains a variety of literary genres, including poetry, history, songs, stories, letters and prophetic writings. These were originally written on scrolls of parchment, as opposed to being encapsulated in "books" as we think of them today. (Remember, the printing press wasn't invented until 1440.)
Over time, the books that were deemed authentic and authoritative by the communities who used them were included in the canon and the rest were discarded. Although the bulk of that editing work ended in the late 300s, the debate over which books were theologically legit continued until at least the 16th century when church reformer Martin Luther published his German translation of the Bible.
Who Decided Which Books to Include in the Bible?
Research from the web
In truth, there was no single church authority or council that convened to rubber stamp the biblical canon (official list of books in the Bible), not at Nicea or anywhere else in antiquity, explains Jason Combs, an assistant professor at Brigham Young University specializing in ancient Christianity.
"Dan Brown did us all a disservice," says Combs. "We don't have evidence that any group of Christians got together and said, 'Let's hash this out once and for all.'" (The Council of Nicea was convened to resolve a religious matter unrelated to the books of the Bible.)
What evidence scholars do have — in the form of theological treatises, letters and church histories that have survived for millennia — points to a much longer process of canonization. From the first through the fourth centuries and beyond, different church leaders and theologians made arguments about which books belonged in the canon, often casting their opponents as heretics.
The books that make up the Bible were written by various people over a period of more than 1,000 years, between 1200 B.C.E. and the first century C.E. The Bible contains a variety of literary genres, including poetry, history, songs, stories, letters and prophetic writings. These were originally written on scrolls of parchment, as opposed to being encapsulated in "books" as we think of them today. (Remember, the printing press wasn't invented until 1440.)
Upvote
0
- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,508
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I don't agree with everything Alan Ballou says. Either way, I would encourage you to watch the whole video because he shows lots of verses that pertain to your situation.
Upvote
0
Clare73
Blood-bought
- Jun 12, 2012
- 25,205
- 6,159
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Jacob did not see God face to face, just as Moses did not.
Jacob "wrestled with a man who could not over power him" (Genesis 32:24-30),
he saw God in the form of an angel (or the pre-Incarnate Christ), and Moses saw his glory/goodness (Exodus 33:19-20).
Neither saw God himself ("face to face").
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Nov 14, 2017
- 9,808
- 5,656
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
There are types and anti-types all throughout His Word.
A type is a symbol appointed by God to adumbrate something higher in the future, which is called the antitype
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Bruce Leiter
A sinner saved by God's astounding grace and love
- Jun 16, 2018
- 782
- 551
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Christianity
If you are lazy this post is not for you
Isince i have been here apparently aggravated certain people despite God himself seeming completely fine with someone Evaluating The Scriptures:
1.) and examined the Scriptures(U) every day to see if what Paul said was true.
I would assume that if the pattern of those who came into Contact with the apostles were not rebuked or met with such aggravation from the apostles, where God has no problem with Testing Scripture that it is paradoxically uncalled for, when Scripture is Tested for christians to respond aggressively or insinuate things about my person.
Based on what it does say in The Bible, The Bible is open to Scrutiny to which God Himself has no problem.
MY EVALUATION OF SCRIPTURE:
From Everything I have heard, Studied on my own in the form of an anthropology of The Bible, Examining its compilation, and based on verses I have Still decided to Truth God while allowing for myself to question and Examine everything said or stated by every Biblical author to ensure and determine they even knew anything about God.
In my Studies I have found large internal inconsistencies and literary problems that I can not ignore and can not do anything but question because of such problems.
1.) Overview of The Bibles Compilation and Historical Analysis:
Based on analysis and research
OLD TESTAMENT
The Old Testament is the first section of the Bible, covering the creation of Earth through Noah and the flood, Moses and more, finishing with the Jews being expelled to Babylon.
The Bible | HISTORY
HEZIKIAH
It was during the reign of Hezekiah of Judah in the 8th century B.C. that historians believe what would become the Old Testament began to take form, the result of royal scribes recording royal history and heroic legends.
During the reign of Josiah in the 6th century B.C., the books of Deuteronomy and Judges were compiled and added. The final form of the Hebrew Bible developed over the next 200 years when Judah was swallowed up by the expanding Persian Empire.
SEPTUIGENT
Following conquest by Alexander the Great, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek in the 3rd century B.C.
Known as the Septuagint, this Greek translation was initiated at the request of King Ptolemy of Egypt to be included in the library of Alexandria. The Septuagint was the version of the Bible used by early Christians in Rome.
The Book of Daniel was written during this period and included in the Septuagint at the last moment, though the text itself claims to have been written sometime around 586 B.C.
NEW TESTAMENT
The New Testament tells the story of the life of Jesus and the early days of Christianity, most notably Paul’s efforts to spread Jesus’ teaching. It collects 27 books, all originally written in Greek.
The sections of the New Testament concerning Jesus are called the Gospels and were written about 40 years after the earliest written Christian materials, the letters of Paul, known as the Epistles.
Paul’s letters were distributed by churches sometime around 50 A.D., possibly just before Paul’s death. Scribes copied the letters and kept them in circulation. As circulation continued, the letters were collected into books.
Some in the church, inspired by Paul, began to write and circulate their own letters, and so historians believe that some books of the New Testament attributed to Paul were in fact written by disciples and imitators.
As Paul’s words were circulated, an oral tradition began in churches telling stories about Jesus, including teachings and accounts of post-resurrection appearances. Sections of the New Testament attributed to Paul talk about Jesus with a firsthand feeling, but Paul never knew Jesus except in visions he had, and the Gospels were not yet written at the time of Paul’s letters.
GOD GOSPEL
The oral traditions within the church formed the substance of the Gospels, the earliest book of which is Mark, written around 70 A.D., 40 years after the death of Jesus.
It is theorized there may have been an original document of sayings by Jesus known as the Q source, which was adapted into the narratives of the Gospels. All four Gospels were published anonymously, but historians believe that the books were given the name of Jesus’ disciples to provide direct links to Jesus to lend them greater authority.
Matthew and Luke were next in the chronology. Both used Mark as a reference, but Matthew is considered to have another separate source, known as the M source, as it contains some different material from Mark. Both books also stress the proof of Jesus’ divinity more than Mark did.
The Book of John, written around 100 A.D., was the final of the four and has a reputation for hostility to Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries.
All four books cover the life of Jesus with many similarities, but sometimes contradictions in their portrayals. Each is considered to have its own political and religious agenda linked to authorship.
For instance, the books of Matthew and Luke present different accounts of Jesus’ birth, and all contradict each other about the resurrection.
BIBLICAL CANON
Surviving documents from the 4th century show that different councils within the church released lists to guide how various Christian texts should be treated.
The earliest known attempt to create a canon in the same respect as the New Testament was in 2nd century Rome by Marcion, a Turkish businessman and church leader.
Marcion’s work focused on the Gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul. Disapproving of the effort, the Roman church expelled Marcion.
Second-century Syrian writer Tatian attempted to create a canon by weaving the four gospels together as the Diatessaron.
The Muratorian Canon, which is believed to date to 200 A.D., is the earliest compilation of canonical texts resembling the New Testament.
It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon. The books that eventually were considered canon reflect the times they were embraced as much the times of the events they portray.
During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, books not originally written in Hebrew but Greek, such as Judith and Maccabees, were excluded from the Old Testament. These are known the Apocrypha and are still included in the Catholic Bible.
Gnostic gospel
Additional Biblical texts have been discovered, such as the Gospel of Mary, which was part of the larger Berlin Gnostic Codex found in Egypt in 1896.
Fifty further unused Biblical texts were discovered in Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945, known as the Gnostic Gospels.
Among the Gnostic Gospels were the Gospel of Thomas—which purports to be previously hidden sayings by Jesus presented in collaboration with his twin brother—and The Gospel of Philip, which implies a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The original texts are believed to date back to around 120 A.D.
The Book of Judas was found in Egypt in the 1970s. Dated to around 280 A.D., it is believed by some to contain secret conversations between Jesus and his betrayer Judas.
These have never become part of the official Biblical canon, but stem from the same traditions and can be read as alternative views of the same stories and lessons. These texts are taken as indications of the diversity of early Christianity.
KING JAMES BIBLE
The King James Bible is possibly the most widely-known edition of the Bible, though in England it is known as the “Authorized Version.”
First printed in 1611, this edition of the Bible was commissioned in 1604 by King James I after feeling political pressure from Puritans and Calvinists demanding church reform and calling for a complete restructuring of church hierarchy.
In response, James called for a conference at Hampton Court Palace, during which it was suggested to him that there should be a new translation of the Bible since versions commissioned by earlier monarchs were felt to be corrupt.
King James eventually agreed and decreed the new translation should speak in contemporary language, using common, recognizable terms. James’ purpose was to unite the warring religious factions through a uniform holy text.
This version of the Bible was not altered for 250 years and is credited as one of the biggest influences on the English language, alongside the works of Shakespeare. The King James Bible introduced a multitude of words and phrases now common in the English language, including “eye for an eye,” “bottomless pit,” “two-edged sword,” “God forbid,” “scapegoat” and “turned the world upside down,” among many others.
MY PROBLEM WITH CANON
The books that make up the Bible were written by various people over a period of more than 1,000 years, between 1200 B.C.E. and the first century C.E. The Bible contains a variety of literary genres, including poetry, history, songs, stories, letters and prophetic writings. These were originally written on scrolls of parchment, as opposed to being encapsulated in "books" as we think of them today. (Remember, the printing press wasn't invented until 1440.)
Over time, the books that were deemed authentic and authoritative by the communities who used them were included in the canon and the rest were discarded. Although the bulk of that editing work ended in the late 300s, the debate over which books were theologically legit continued until at least the 16th century when church reformer Martin Luther published his German translation of the Bible.
Who Decided Which Books to Include in the Bible?
Research from the web
In truth, there was no single church authority or council that convened to rubber stamp the biblical canon (official list of books in the Bible), not at Nicea or anywhere else in antiquity, explains Jason Combs, an assistant professor at Brigham Young University specializing in ancient Christianity.
"Dan Brown did us all a disservice," says Combs. "We don't have evidence that any group of Christians got together and said, 'Let's hash this out once and for all.'" (The Council of Nicea was convened to resolve a religious matter unrelated to the books of the Bible.)
What evidence scholars do have — in the form of theological treatises, letters and church histories that have survived for millennia — points to a much longer process of canonization. From the first through the fourth centuries and beyond, different church leaders and theologians made arguments about which books belonged in the canon, often casting their opponents as heretics.
The books that make up the Bible were written by various people over a period of more than 1,000 years, between 1200 B.C.E. and the first century C.E. The Bible contains a variety of literary genres, including poetry, history, songs, stories, letters and prophetic writings. These were originally written on scrolls of parchment, as opposed to being encapsulated in "books" as we think of them today. (Remember, the printing press wasn't invented until 1440.)
Your whole summary is interesting (I read all of it), but I want to ask you, (1) Which "historians" and "scholars" did you rely on to arrive at your conclusions? You quote one from BYU; that probably means that he is a Mormon with a view that would be on different assumptions than biblical ones.
(2) How much did you read of other historians and scholars who disagree with those people with whom you agree, and why did they disagree? (If you don't agree with them, why not?)
My point is that the so-called experts also have hidden agendas and assumptions that color their approach to the Scriptures. For example, you say at the beginning that your approach is anthropological. Other approaches of the Bible look at it on the basis of the Bible's own assumptions, because they believe that the Holy Spirit guided the gathering of the canon.
I'll give you an example. I was reading a commentary of the Gospel of John by a scholar who didn't believe in God's inspiration of that and all the other books. His conclusion was that though he didn't agree with John, John definitely believed that God is a Trinity.
You see, when you approach the Bible thinking that the books are not inspired by God, the way Paul says they are in 2 Timothy 3:16-18 and Peter says they are in 2 Peter 1:16-21, you will come to the conclusions that those historians and scholars have.
On the other hand, if God has given you faith to believe in him and the Bible's revealing of him, especially in Jesus Christ, you approach the so-called problems as mysteries not revealed by God through his inspired writers.
One last point is that God is revealed in the Bible as one God in three Persons (the Gospel of John and other passages) and Jesus as both fully God and fully human (shown in the Gospel of Mark, for example). No one including the writers of the Bible could have come up with those ideas; they are beyond human thought. That observation demonstrates to me that God had to have inspired those writers to write their histories and ideas, since humans couldn't have imagined such a mysterious God and Jesus.
I have one suggestion. Instead of reading people's wrting about the Bible, try reading the Bible itself in a modern translation like the NIV that comes directly from the Greek and Hebrew. Let it convince you that God did or didn't reveal himself in that whole Book. (I suggest that when you come to the lists and geneologies, you get the idea and move so as not to get bogged down.) Enjoy!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The fact you are offended is the problem.
second, melchizidek is not a type of Christ. Christ is himself differentiated, next...
Upvote
0
Psalm 110:4 -The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”
It is obvious that if God is referring to Jesus Christ,God the son that because God is differentiating he is not Melchezidek, and not Christ, He is not a type of Christ it can not be understood in any other way. If melchizidek is not God, in the sense he is the maximum authority of Creator, than it is Conceprually challenging to understand The Concept of The Trinity.
My other problem were that if The Bible does not use the term "Lord " in The beggining of Genesis, why not? it does not state that God Created man, but that the elohim created man.either way it obvious if The Binle does not say that Melchizidek is God, and that he is not Christ that MELCHEZIDEK is JESUS or Christ its not that hard to understand and this is not a statement meant to offend you im responding out of aggravation that if The Text, is DIFFERENTIATING the person saying it, to whom he is stating it to it does not say that Jesus is in the Order of Jesus. it says Melchezidek is a Priest Forever, and Jesus is in that Order after Melchezidek.
How could it be insinuated that he is Jesus or that Melchezidek is a Type of Christ? Where does the doctrine of a " type of christ" originate. I have heard many people say melchezidek is Jesus, and that is not make sense anywhere between what is said in the verses.
Upvote
0
Your whole summary is interesting (I read all of it), but I want to ask you, (1) Which "historians" and "scholars" did you rely on to arrive at your conclusions? You quote one from BYU; that probably means that he is a Mormon with a view that would be on different assumptions than biblical ones.
Whether or not he is a Mormon is essential to the evaluation of his involvement in influencing biblical canon, which is my point. Denominatiins are those who specifically try to change Scripture based on their view of what Scripture is, it is the reason that Bible version are nothing more than a denominational version.
This explains why Scriptures are whollefully taken out of certain Bible version where verses are not in binle versions despite being in others.
If Christians had any concept of how Biblical canon was Compiled, much less how denominational versions are denomination specific they would understand why they disagree with other denominations like the carholic church and the Christian Church.It also provided a basis for why and whether, The Biblical canon was Compiled correctly. In its beggining it is due to note the reasons that certain writing was included or excluded, and for what basis as to why it's IN the Bible. However, these types of Evaluatiobs tread on the oharisee and legal expert who want to make The Bible what they want to make it. If you read what I wrote, you would notice that they also very largely dispute book's that are currently in The Bible which is, questionable as to their motives.
(2) How much did you read of other historians and scholars who disagree with those people with whom you agree, and why did they disagree? (If you don't agree with them, why not?)
It is not based on whether I personally agree or anyone, it is a matter of the criteria:
The first was authorship, whether it was believed to have been written by an apostle, by Paul or by someone close to them. Mark, for example, wasn't an apostle, but was an interpreter for Peter. The second criterium was antiquity, with older texts taking priority over newer ones.
I had thought after reading that antiquity is relative to determine if it was written by an apostle, not a writing style as how could someone believe it was written by an apostle without knowing it, and basing that as the basis for all other written texts that followed that writing style? Unless you knew it was written by an apostle the criteria is nothing more than based on a belief in which the writing style is the basis for determine an author and his or her writings and whether ot not a text is associated with the same author. Of course, there are going to be different writing styles by different people even if they have God's Holy Spirit.
And the third was orthodoxy, or how well the text conformed with current Christian teaching
This is nothing more than control over what sounds correct, my issue and the result of all arguments here. If it does not conform with " Christian " teaching it is considered heretical. How can it say in God's Word that Melchezidek is not God or Jesus and then there be " christians" who argue melchezidek is a " type " or christ?
Most " Christian's don't even read the Bible, so when you point it out that there is something in the Bible that conflicts with what they've been taught, your evil how then are they not saying God is evil and how much more contradictory in that they consider Yahweh Holy when they are calling you evil for whats in God's own word. And this is why I hate discussing thing's with Christians because they are innumerable contraditive. It suggests they are brainwashed, not led By The Holy Spirit that penned The Bible. For instance when God is talking in job, he state's that he created animals so that they could pray on other animal. You tell a Christian that, and they get questionable in ferm's of what they understand.
Quote:
My point is that the so-called experts also have hidden agendas and assumptions that color their approach to the Scriptures. For example, you say at the beginning that your approach is anthropological. Other approaches of the Bible look at it on the basis of the Bible's own assumptions, because they believe that the Holy Spirit guided the gathering of the canon.
The Holy Spirit taught Paul and the Other's. No one is Disputing that fact, my problem is that there are Bible versions which have been altered, and everyone knows it. If God's Word can be altered who is to say that it hasn't been in antiquity and isn't this important to find out? Even if its for yourself? If something doesn't make sense it should be talked about not disregarded, like many Christians do.
Quote:
I'll give you an example. I was reading a commentary of the Gospel of John by a scholar who didn't believe in God's inspiration of that and all the other books. His conclusion was that though he didn't agree with John, John definitely believed that God is a Trinity.
This would follow suit with Martin Luther who removed parts of the Bible that didn't sit well with his view. Who is to say many others did not remove parts of The Bible that didn't sit well with their view that compiled it. A Christian can not argue that the Bible is free of being corrupted, if that is man's intent. They also can't argue that it is not something that happened and bury their head in the sand as if there is any reason to believe people had honest efforts in compiling the Bible. I'm not suggesting gnostic text should be in The Bible however there should be closer scrutiny into what The Bible is
denominations have for a very long period of time included texts into a Bible version that others exclude so how can Christian's say that the Bible they have is accurate without basing it on a very unbiased evaluation and Extensivr Research? The people involved in it's original Compilation should have cited source and reasons for why they included or excluded books. Now obvious books should be excluded like the book of Enoch for obvious reasons in that it was written 1.A.D, Enoch was in heaven and didn't speak the Ethiopian or Slavonic language. However, what about other books? There should be a concise library of why or why not a book was included, not a crappy list of criteria for what a person believed should be in God's Word? If God is The Author the vetting process shouldn't be so lazy and based on what people believe but can verify!
You see, when you approach the Bible thinking that the books are not inspired by God, the way Paul says they are in 2 Timothy 3:16-18 and Peter says they are in 2 Peter 1:16-21, you will come to the conclusions that those historians and scholars have.
On the other hand, if God has given you faith to believe in him and the Bible's revealing of him, especially in Jesus Christ, you approach the so-called problems as mysteries not revealed by God through his inspired writers.
One last point is that God is revealed in the Bible as one God in three Persons (the Gospel of John and other passages) and Jesus as both fully God and fully human (shown in the Gospel of Mark, for example). No one including the writers of the Bible could have come up with those ideas; they are beyond human thought.
First, they are not beyond human thought. What is in The Bible alludes to Jesus Christ throughout its entirety in Genesis, it is nowhere outside of Human thought when it is provided in The Text it is associated with. It is differentiated in that a person who can perform those miracles if of God who is then Chosen by God and directly Dtated to be that person when the time comes to pass the person if the one performing those miracles.
All throughout The Bible it can not be argued a pre-incarnate Jesus is present throughout Scripture and then say it is beyond human thought.
That observation demonstrates to me that God had to have inspired those writers to write their histories and ideas, since humans couldn't have imagined such a mysterious God and Jesus.
No one, has imagined anything. The Bible itself differentiates between good and evil spirits. Other peoples religions are not false, in that they communicate with spirit's, however they are obviously not good if they lie. My Problem is when I read in ahab that God sent a lying spirit to deceive those who were false prophet's how much of religion is God himself involved in? And this is based on if people want to believe a lie.
I have one suggestion. Instead of reading people's wrting about the Bible, try reading the Bible itself in a modern translation like the NIV that comes directly from the Greek and Hebrew. Let it convince you that God did or didn't reveal himself in that whole Book. (I suggest that when you come to the lists and geneologies, you get the idea and move so as not to get bogged down.) Enjoy![/QUOTE]
THE niv is the worst Bible possibly in that it states that christ is not God in every verse!
Whether or not he is a Mormon is essential to the evaluation of his involvement in influencing biblical canon, which is my point. Denominatiins are those who specifically try to change Scripture based on their view of what Scripture is, it is the reason that Bible version are nothing more than a denominational version.
This explains why Scriptures are whollefully taken out of certain Bible version where verses are not in binle versions despite being in others.
If Christians had any concept of how Biblical canon was Compiled, much less how denominational versions are denomination specific they would understand why they disagree with other denominations like the carholic church and the Christian Church.It also provided a basis for why and whether, The Biblical canon was Compiled correctly. In its beggining it is due to note the reasons that certain writing was included or excluded, and for what basis as to why it's IN the Bible. However, these types of Evaluatiobs tread on the oharisee and legal expert who want to make The Bible what they want to make it. If you read what I wrote, you would notice that they also very largely dispute book's that are currently in The Bible which is, questionable as to their motives.
(2) How much did you read of other historians and scholars who disagree with those people with whom you agree, and why did they disagree? (If you don't agree with them, why not?)
It is not based on whether I personally agree or anyone, it is a matter of the criteria:
The first was authorship, whether it was believed to have been written by an apostle, by Paul or by someone close to them. Mark, for example, wasn't an apostle, but was an interpreter for Peter. The second criterium was antiquity, with older texts taking priority over newer ones.
I had thought after reading that antiquity is relative to determine if it was written by an apostle, not a writing style as how could someone believe it was written by an apostle without knowing it, and basing that as the basis for all other written texts that followed that writing style? Unless you knew it was written by an apostle the criteria is nothing more than based on a belief in which the writing style is the basis for determine an author and his or her writings and whether ot not a text is associated with the same author. Of course, there are going to be different writing styles by different people even if they have God's Holy Spirit.
And the third was orthodoxy, or how well the text conformed with current Christian teaching
This is nothing more than control over what sounds correct, my issue and the result of all arguments here. If it does not conform with " Christian " teaching it is considered heretical. How can it say in God's Word that Melchezidek is not God or Jesus and then there be " christians" who argue melchezidek is a " type " or christ?
Most " Christian's don't even read the Bible, so when you point it out that there is something in the Bible that conflicts with what they've been taught, your evil how then are they not saying God is evil and how much more contradictory in that they consider Yahweh Holy when they are calling you evil for whats in God's own word. And this is why I hate discussing thing's with Christians because they are innumerable contraditive. It suggests they are brainwashed, not led By The Holy Spirit that penned The Bible. For instance when God is talking in job, he state's that he created animals so that they could pray on other animal. You tell a Christian that, and they get questionable in ferm's of what they understand.
Quote:
My point is that the so-called experts also have hidden agendas and assumptions that color their approach to the Scriptures. For example, you say at the beginning that your approach is anthropological. Other approaches of the Bible look at it on the basis of the Bible's own assumptions, because they believe that the Holy Spirit guided the gathering of the canon.
The Holy Spirit taught Paul and the Other's. No one is Disputing that fact, my problem is that there are Bible versions which have been altered, and everyone knows it. If God's Word can be altered who is to say that it hasn't been in antiquity and isn't this important to find out? Even if its for yourself? If something doesn't make sense it should be talked about not disregarded, like many Christians do.
Quote:
I'll give you an example. I was reading a commentary of the Gospel of John by a scholar who didn't believe in God's inspiration of that and all the other books. His conclusion was that though he didn't agree with John, John definitely believed that God is a Trinity.
This would follow suit with Martin Luther who removed parts of the Bible that didn't sit well with his view. Who is to say many others did not remove parts of The Bible that didn't sit well with their view that compiled it. A Christian can not argue that the Bible is free of being corrupted, if that is man's intent. They also can't argue that it is not something that happened and bury their head in the sand as if there is any reason to believe people had honest efforts in compiling the Bible. I'm not suggesting gnostic text should be in The Bible however there should be closer scrutiny into what The Bible is
denominations have for a very long period of time included texts into a Bible version that others exclude so how can Christian's say that the Bible they have is accurate without basing it on a very unbiased evaluation and Extensivr Research? The people involved in it's original Compilation should have cited source and reasons for why they included or excluded books. Now obvious books should be excluded like the book of Enoch for obvious reasons in that it was written 1.A.D, Enoch was in heaven and didn't speak the Ethiopian or Slavonic language. However, what about other books? There should be a concise library of why or why not a book was included, not a crappy list of criteria for what a person believed should be in God's Word? If God is The Author the vetting process shouldn't be so lazy and based on what people believe but can verify!
You see, when you approach the Bible thinking that the books are not inspired by God, the way Paul says they are in 2 Timothy 3:16-18 and Peter says they are in 2 Peter 1:16-21, you will come to the conclusions that those historians and scholars have.
On the other hand, if God has given you faith to believe in him and the Bible's revealing of him, especially in Jesus Christ, you approach the so-called problems as mysteries not revealed by God through his inspired writers.
One last point is that God is revealed in the Bible as one God in three Persons (the Gospel of John and other passages) and Jesus as both fully God and fully human (shown in the Gospel of Mark, for example). No one including the writers of the Bible could have come up with those ideas; they are beyond human thought.
First, they are not beyond human thought. What is in The Bible alludes to Jesus Christ throughout its entirety in Genesis, it is nowhere outside of Human thought when it is provided in The Text it is associated with. It is differentiated in that a person who can perform those miracles if of God who is then Chosen by God and directly Dtated to be that person when the time comes to pass the person if the one performing those miracles.
All throughout The Bible it can not be argued a pre-incarnate Jesus is present throughout Scripture and then say it is beyond human thought.
That observation demonstrates to me that God had to have inspired those writers to write their histories and ideas, since humans couldn't have imagined such a mysterious God and Jesus.
No one, has imagined anything. The Bible itself differentiates between good and evil spirits. Other peoples religions are not false, in that they communicate with spirit's, however they are obviously not good if they lie. My Problem is when I read in ahab that God sent a lying spirit to deceive those who were false prophet's how much of religion is God himself involved in? And this is based on if people want to believe a lie.
I have one suggestion. Instead of reading people's wrting about the Bible, try reading the Bible itself in a modern translation like the NIV that comes directly from the Greek and Hebrew. Let it convince you that God did or didn't reveal himself in that whole Book. (I suggest that when you come to the lists and geneologies, you get the idea and move so as not to get bogged down.) Enjoy![/QUOTE]
THE niv is the worst Bible possibly in that it states that christ is not God in every verse!
Upvote
0
GallagherM
Well-Known Member
- Jun 13, 2021
- 818
- 349
- 33
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Thank you for the correction. I agree with him. I believe that everything that Jesus Christ told his disciples came about in 70ad which makes me someone whom is crazy and heretical for the most part according to others anyway. (You or anyone else may disagree wont fight on that subject anyway).
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
