How do you know

[fatboys]

I tried to say that I was persuaded that the Bible is God's revelation. There are a number of different considerations that go into that conclusion, but this is what formed my basic religious orientation.

Could I make some mistakes concerning certain of the contents? Sure, but it wouldn't likely lead me out of Christianity and into some other religion.

If we were to turn to what I think is a follow-up or secondary question (how do I know I have the interpretation correct?), I am primarily guided by the weight of the evidence, which is to say the consensus of everyone who has worked in the field, including historians, Bible scholars, linguists, and so on. But again, being wrong about some particular issue or other is a far different matter than the much more fundamental issues--being a follower of Christ and/or believing that the Bible is inspired.

I would say that what you are speaking of is a intellectual testimony of what you believe as right. Is that correct?

 

[LoAmmi]

Maybe you have only experienced good and so you are use to all things good. So you could be experiencing spiritual things but are just use to it. Or you are so practical that spiritual things are not important?

Couldn't tell you. I've always felt very disconnected from everything. I've gotten better as I've gotten older, though some might say I've just gotten better at faking it even to myself. When I was a teenager I would have sudden realizations that the people around me were real people. It would happen a few times a year. Like realizing that these people went to places when I didn't see them and did things that I wasn't aware of. It's hard to explain. I did get bullied a lot and when I got in fights I would try to seriously injure the person fighting me. Maybe it was a coping mechanism so that I didn't think I was trying to ruin someone's life.

So when it comes to spiritual things, what people describe to me seems like pure fantasy. Not something that actually happens but is in their head more than reality.

 

[fatboys]

As far as I'm aware, seeing the future wasn't even considered a requirement in Judaism. Just having a divine message for the people was enough to be considered a prophet. However, if a claimed prophet predicted something would happen and it didn't (outside of punishments if the people didn't straighten up, obviously) they were immediately a false prophet.

unless the prophecy was in the far future such as teaching of a coming messiah.

 

[LoAmmi]

unless the prophecy was in the far future such as teaching of a coming messiah.

Sure. But when you talk about people like Isaiah, he spoke of things that happened in the near future, like the young woman giving birth and by the time her child knew right from wrong the enemy facing King Ahaz would be destroyed, as well as the future Messiah.

 

[fatboys]

Couldn't tell you. I've always felt very disconnected from everything. I've gotten better as I've gotten older, though some might say I've just gotten better at faking it even to myself. When I was a teenager I would have sudden realizations that the people around me were real people. It would happen a few times a year. Like realizing that these people went to places when I didn't see them and did things that I wasn't aware of. It's hard to explain. I did get bullied a lot and when I got in fights I would try to seriously injure the person fighting me. Maybe it was a coping mechanism so that I didn't think I was trying to ruin someone's life.

So when it comes to spiritual things, what people describe to me seems like pure fantasy. Not something that actually happens but is in their head more than reality.

I have a cousin that's thinks the same way. He was active in the church all his life and went on a mission. Came home got married in the temple and had a couple of kids. His wife was a convert and she started to cheat on him. He went nuts. Tried killing himself. That is when he lost faith in anything at all. We have had our discussions but he thinks there is no God and I'm faking my experiences. I like the guy but we don't talk religion any more. He has remarried and had a couple more kids. He seems happy but the light thT was in his eyes has gone if you know what I mean.
I will tell you this. You seem to be a good person and you will be rewarded for your kindness and faith you have.

 

[fatboys]

Sure. But when you talk about people like Isaiah, he spoke of things that happened in the near future, like the young woman giving birth and by the time her child knew right from wrong the enemy facing King Ahaz would be destroyed, as well as the future Messiah.

I agree

 

[LoAmmi]

I have a cousin that's thinks the same way. He was active in the church all his life and went on a mission. Came home got married in the temple and had a couple of kids. His wife was a convert and she started to cheat on him. He went nuts. Tried killing himself. That is when he lost faith in anything at all. We have had our discussions but he thinks there is no God and I'm faking my experiences. I like the guy but we don't talk religion any more. He has remarried and had a couple more kids. He seems happy but the light thT was in his eyes has gone if you know what I mean.
I will tell you this. You seem to be a good person and you will be rewarded for your kindness and faith you have.

I can't say I lost anything. I can't ever remember having it to begin with. I even remember as a child thinking that the stories in the Tanach were far fetched and didn't make sense in context of the world I knew.

I won't downplay other's experiences to them. I have no doubt that you experienced what you experienced. The source of that experience, however, is not something I can see so I have to rely on logic. Since I would imagine that vast majority of instances of these things are due to some form of mental illness, wish fulfillment, or even drug use, I just say that it is likely all of them are due to something like that. I can't verify if they are real and I can't trust the person who experienced them because they can be wrong.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So a prophet is more than just a person who foresees? Are you getting this mainstream Christians?

This is a pretty normative way of understanding what a prophet is in mainstream Christian circles. Prophets aren't those who "fore-tell" but "forth-tell", the ministry of the prophet wasn't to predict things or function as a seer, but to speak the word of God. Which is also why the gift of prophecy, as understood largely in mainstream Christian circles, isn't the gift of seeing the future or having special insight or revelation, it's the gift of preaching the word. Something every pastor/priest/bishop has done when delivering a homily in the last two millennia.

- CryptoLutheran

 

[fatboys]

This is a pretty normative way of understanding what a prophet is in mainstream Christian circles. Prophets aren't those who "fore-tell" but "forth-tell", the ministry of the prophet wasn't to predict things or function as a seer, but to speak the word of God. Which is also why the gift of prophecy, as understood largely in mainstream Christian circles, isn't the gift of seeing the future or having special insight or revelation, it's the gift of preaching the word. Something every pastor/priest/bishop has done when delivering a homily in the last two millennia.

- CryptoLutheran

Then why aren't their words considered scripture?

 

[Ellie1142545]

Faith....Faith in Him, though I have not seen Him.....I believe the way I do, because He has instilled in me the truth......

And....Though we may believe, in Him, and His Word, His Son, and The Holy Spirit, we believe differently....No one believes the exact same way.....

 

[ViaCrucis]

Then why aren't their words considered scripture?

Because there's no reason why their words would be Scripture. That's not how the Canon works.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fatboys]

Because there's no reason why their words would be Scripture. That's not how the Canon works.

-CryptoLutheran

When paul wrote his letters of correction to the different cities do you think that he had it in mind that hey would be considered scripture

 

[stevevw]

I think the main proof for me is personal experience. I was once saved and was happy and life was good. Then I lost faith through drifting away from God over time. I then started to doubt and question everything. I wanted evidence that God was real otherwise I couldn't believe in something that I couldn't see. When I looked I started to get into evolution and became convinced that everything evolved. Though I still had this small flame of belief which I couldn't work out why. That small flame kept bugging me and it grew into a bigger flame. Despite all the logic and evidence I thought I had I still kept thinking there's more to it than what I see. It just doesn't make sense that everything made itself. It was to amazing to have come from nothing.

Then I let God back in and everything fell into place. I became unhappy when I drifted away from God. I was chasing material things and the worlds idea of happiness and peace. When I found God again I found true happiness and peace. So for me its my personal experience of having found God, then drifting away like the prodigal son and then coming back. I had done it twice so I had this good comparison I had experienced to know. Its like I got a second opinion to make sure and now I know for sure.

 

[ananda]

I would like to know how each of you know what you believe is the truth or the right way to believe. Now some are going to answer that they do not think they are the only way but one way. I still want to know how you came to this point in your life. This is for everyone. If you had some sort of spiritual experience please explain how it was manifest to you. If you have come to the conclusion that there is nothing explain how you came to this conclusion. I know I have asked this before and if you have and don't want to repeat yourself I understand.

Lord Buddha taught a systematic, step-by-step path, which he described in this way: "The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here and now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves." Bascially, he claimed that his path was personally verifiable, by anyone, at any time - past, present, or future. That uniqueness regarding early Buddhism set it apart from all other religious faiths, and compelled me to investigate it further.

The role of faith - in early Buddhism - is merely a starting point, used to propel the individual towards practice of one step along the path. Then, when practiced, that faith turns into personal knowledge, which produces additional faith in the veracity of the next step along the path.

I have started to walk Lord Buddha's path and have proved to myself the truthfulness of what he claimed thus far, adding to my faith that his teaching regarding future steps will also prove itself.

Needless to say, I've abandoned all paths which requires blind faith, or elevates intermediaries, to be blindly trusted, between me and the Truth.

 

[gord44]

Needless to say, I've abandoned all paths which requires blind faith, or elevates intermediaries, to be blindly trusted, between me and the Truth.

 

[fatboys]

Lord Buddha taught a systematic, step-by-step path, which he described in this way: "The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here and now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves." Bascially, he claimed that his path was personally verifiable, by anyone, at any time - past, present, or future. That uniqueness regarding early Buddhism set it apart from all other religious faiths, and compelled me to investigate it further.

The role of faith - in early Buddhism - is merely a starting point, used to propel the individual towards practice of one step along the path. Then, when practiced, that faith turns into personal knowledge, which produces additional faith in the veracity of the next step along the path.

I have started to walk Lord Buddha's path and have proved to myself the truthfulness of what he claimed thus far, adding to my faith that his teaching regarding future steps will also prove itself.

Needless to say, I've abandoned all paths which requires blind faith, or elevates intermediaries, to be blindly trusted, between me and the Truth.

So what is the end game

 

[ananda]

So what is the end game

Nibbana ... the unbinding, the foremost ease, the highest bliss.

 

[ViaCrucis]

When paul wrote his letters of correction to the different cities do you think that he had it in mind that hey would be considered scripture

I don't.

It was later Christians who, having those letters and reading them out loud in the course of worship, received them as Scripture in succeeding generations.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[fatboys]

I don't.

It was later Christians who, having those letters and reading them out loud in the course of worship, received them as Scripture in succeeding generations.

-CryptoLutheran

Which Christians are you referring to? Who decided which ones?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Which Christians are you referring to? Who decided which ones?

The Pauline epistles came to be accepted pretty early, by the time anyone was even talking about what books should be read in the churches at all, the letters of Paul were largely an assumed given. Figuring out exactly when Paul's letters became so widely accepted is difficult to pinpoint, the dating of 2 Peter can be helpful given the comments made in the text, but certainly by the mid 2nd century to the last quarter of the 2nd century a proto-New Testament Canon consisting of what is typically called the homologoumena was in place, an an early attestation to the discussion between homologoumena and antilegomena can be seen in the Muratorian Fragment usually dated to around the year 200. Though we can see earlier references to certain books among the 2nd century fathers such as Justin and Irenaeus. Taking the dating of 2 Peter (one of the books of the antilegomena) is helpful. A date between about 90-130 AD is probably reasonable for the dating of 2 Peter, thus making it contemporary with the Apostolic Fathers, (e.g. Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, et al).

There was no real formal process for how the New Testament Canon came to be, the process was long and largely informal; coming about through a gradual and growing consensus of the Faithful. Certain leaders in the Church gave their opinion, and those opinions carried weight, but those opinions were also usually governed by what was largely already widely accepted and happening in the churches themselves. So it wasn't exactly a top-down process, but was largely a ground-level process--widespread usage and acceptance in the regular worship happening around the Christian world being engaged with and by various leaders within the Church, and in later centuries local councils also weighing in (e.g. the Councils of Carthage, Hippo, and Laodicea, which did not all agree with each other concerning the Canon, but which were influential in the ongoing process).

Because, and this is important, what is called the Bible today is the result of what books were to be read in the churches, that is, what was to be read out loud as part of the liturgy. When we see statements concerning books that should be read and books that shouldn't be read this isn't about personal reading, as though there were books that someone simply was banned to ever look at; rather it was about what was to be read out loud as part of organized Christian worship. Then, as now, Scripture readings are a fundamental component of ordinary Christian worship. The Bible, then, developed as a liturgical document.

And because the Canon developed in this way, what is to be regarded as Scripture is determined by the historic usage and widespread acceptance within the Church; so even if we, today, came across a copy of the long lost Book of Jasher, or the Book of Ido the Seer, these would never be part of the Canon, they would not be Scripture. Because what is and isn't Scripture is the result of two thousand years of inter-Christian discussion and consensus. Nobody ever read Jasher or Ido in the churches, it was never part of normative Christian worship, they therefore simply are not--should they ever be discovered--ever going to be part of the Christian Canon of Scripture. Not as far as mainstream, orthodox Christians are concerned anyhow.

-CryptoLutheran