Christians shouldn't base their theology on discredited books

[PloverWing]

Many Christians would accept that the gospels were probably written by someone else. But those Christians would still accept the authority of the epistles. Though I can't begin to understand why.

The epistles (and the rest of the New Testament) carry the authority of the early church: they are books that the early church agreed upon as authentically embodying their beliefs about the life and message of Jesus.

This does not necessarily make the books infallible or inerrant; Christians disagree about inerrancy, as you probably know. But it makes the books worthy of attention and study.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The epistles (and the rest of the New Testament) carry the authority of the early church: they are books that the early church agreed upon as authentically embodying their beliefs about the life and message of Jesus.

This does not necessarily make the books infallible or inerrant; Christians disagree about inerrancy, as you probably know. But it makes the books worthy of attention and study.

Only if you care about the opinions of the ECFs. What sets them above the rest of us?

 

[PloverWing]

Only if you care about the opinions of the ECFs. What sets them above the rest of us?

Chiefly that they were closer to Jesus in time. Jesus didn't write down his own sermons, unfortunately, and we may or may not have writings from people directly taught by Jesus, but we probably have writings from people who were taught by Jesus' disciples. That's still pretty good, maybe something like the distance in time between me and Gandhi, if I picture myself trying to discover what Gandhi authentically taught.

 

[Uber Genius]

Many of the books in the New Testament have been proved to be forgeries. Only 7 of the 13 letters of Paul have been credited to the original writer known as "Paul". 2nd Peter is clearly a forgery and makes no sense.

I'm not saying that some of the later written books are completely without any good content. In fact, maybe a later letter is actually better than Galatians in some ways. But I don't think ANY book should be seen as an authoritative statement from God. None of them are inspired by God in the way that traditional Christians have promoted them.

Christians can believe in the things they want, and they can live by the values that are important to them. But understand that when you say that "God" is behind them, you are really just a politician. Religious faith is nothing more than politics.

I guess I should say that theology shouldn't be based on ANY book. Theology should be based on only what comes from each person's heart. It should be private and individual to each person.

Do you ever try to read the Bible critically?

1 - Stop watching "Zeitgeist."

2 - Do 5 minutes of research.

3 - Please justify your beliefs with real evidence not made-up stuff.

4 - An entry-level college logic course.

Remember you are supposed to be representing the "smart" people who supposedly have had a college undergrad class or two.

Please avoid sweeping or hasty generalizations, or strawman arguments. If you don't know where you made those mistakes, see point 4 above.

I