Misused Christian beliefs

[Zoness]

The Apocrypha books are not added for good reason.

So it can change as long as there's a good enough theological or linguistic reason, then. Well that makes a lot more sense! Hardly something to go to hell over.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It can’t be literally true that death came from sin. It’s obvious that humanity never developed as a species designed to live forever, and that basic design was frozen well before there were any humans around to sin.

I agree but a I doubt others here do.

 

[Romans 8]

So it can change as long as there's a good enough theological or linguistic reason, then. Well that makes a lot more sense! Hardly something to go to hell over.

The Apocrypha was added by the Roman Catholic Church. It should never have been added. The old and new testaments were written by the Holy Spirit (God himself) through the prophets and apostles. Neither the book of Enoch, nor the Apocrypha are inspired.

 

[Romans 8]

I agree but a I doubt others here do.

Death spoken of in Genesis was a spiritual death. Adam and Eve were cut off in their relationship with God and cast out of Eden.

 

[caerlerion]

Oof, Protestants are going to be in a rough spot what with marking the Deuterocanonical books as Apocryphal hereby enabling their Bibles to be reduced to 66 books.

Not to mention that countless Christian scribes and translators who added, removed, altered, and edited the Bible throughout the entire last two thousand years. Not a single book of the Bible hasn't seen textual corruption, both accidental and intentional, a lot of which is still in use.

 

[caerlerion]

The Apocrypha was added by the Roman Catholic Church.

This is historical revisionism. The "Roman Catholic Church", didn't exist for centuries. By the time it came into being (primarily through the schism from the Eastern Church), Christians had been using those scriptures for centuries. This is because the vast majority of Christians (West and East) were using the Septuagint, which contained those books. To claim otherwise is anti-Catholic propaganda, not historical fact. The Catholics didn't add them. Protestants removed them.

 

[Romans 8]

This is historical revisionism. The "Roman Catholic Church", didn't exist for centuries. By the time it came into being (primarily through the schism from the Eastern Church), Christians had been using those scriptures for centuries. This is because the vast majority of Christians (West and East) were using the Septuagint, which contained those books. To claim otherwise is anti-Catholic propaganda, not historical fact. The Catholics didn't add them. Protestants removed them.

Correct, the Catholics didn't remove them. The point is that they're still printing them in their bibles as if they're inspired. They're not. Many Catholics believe the apostles recorded the new testament "the best they could". But that they were mere fishermen, and so "the Bible is full of mistakes". Not a great way to begin teaching the Gospel.

 

[Romans 8]

Not to mention that countless Christian scribes and translators who added, removed, altered, and edited the Bible throughout the entire last two thousand years. Not a single book of the Bible hasn't seen textual corruption, both accidental and intentional, a lot of which is still in use.

What are you even talking about? The Bible comes from manuscripts which are exact copies. They're not added, removed, nor altered. What kind of nonsense have you been reading? It's not difficult to learn about the two main manuscript lineages and why the King James Bible we have today is the most accurate. Stop with the rumours,lies, and falsehoods already.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What are you even talking about? The Bible comes from manuscripts which are exact copies. They're not added, removed, nor altered. What kind of nonsense have you been reading? It's not difficult to learn about the two main manuscript lineages and why the King James Bible we have today is the most accurate. Stop with the rumours,lies, and falsehoods already.

You should read Bruce Metzger

https://confessionalbibliology.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/TheTextOfNewTestament4thEdit.pdf


Especially pages 250 to 280.

 

[holo]

This is where the misunderstanding lays. You're not sent to hell because you sinned. You're sent to hell because you're an enemy of God. All Christians sin, it's in our nature to sin, we're born sinners. We sin, we repent, wash rinse, and repeat. A Christian recognizes the one and only God of the Bible and follows and accepts Jesus and what he did on the cross. I thought you used to be a Christian, how can you not know this?

When I was a believer, my faith wasn't static. For much of my life I did believe that salvation depended on grace, plus avoiding certain sins (as most Christians today seem to believe). At the very least one should commit different sins each time (i.e. "fall in sin") rather than doing the same ones over and over (i.e. "living in sin")
I was told in no uncertain terms that I had to choose between heaven or my record collection, and at the time I sadly believed it. But whether or not people believe a rock record itself will send them to hell, or merely increase their chances of going there, the net result is the same: you can't be a (true) Christian and listen to certain bands. Or certain instruments. Or breathe in a particular way, or arrange your limbs in a certain fashion. In other words, Satan has the ownership of certain frequencies, bodily movements, rhythms etc.

 

[holo]

Yes especially the breathing exercises. They're meant to put you in a state of trance, (Buddhists call it emptiness meditation) so that you're more open to demonic influence.

What do you base this on?

 

[caerlerion]

What are you even talking about? The Bible comes from manuscripts which are exact copies. They're not added, removed, nor altered. What kind of nonsense have you been reading? It's not difficult to learn about the two main manuscript lineages and why the King James Bible we have today is the most accurate. Stop with the rumours,lies, and falsehoods already.

1. The KJV is not the most accurate version today. It is flowery and poetic, but has hundreds of errors.

2. I've been keeping up with textual criticism. If you have read even a single book on the subject, you would know that "exact copies" is plainly untrue. You even acknowledge there are "two main manuscript traditions". Which is it? What we have today is "exact"ly the same as the originals, or there are variant "manuscript traditions"? Even the most conservative Christian scholars acknowledge there are tens of thousands of differences in the NT manuscripts alone. Some 90+% of those are minor misspellings and grammatically-acceptable syntax variants. Some of the remainder are text deletion, repetition, and misplacement. Past that, there are several deliberate corruptions of the NT, including interpolations and revisions. (Ex: Mark's long ending, the adulterous woman in John, the anti-Semitic remark in 1 Thessalonians.) Then there's the OT, where the MT, LXX, SP, and DSS contain thousands more differences, many of them also intentional. (Ex: MT Jeremiah rearranges several chapters and inserts whole paragraphs.) That's before even getting to pseudepigrapha in the NT. Saying the Bible we have today is based on "exact copies" is just not compatible with the evidence we have. It's a willful burying of one's head in the sand to avoid the reality that biblical manuscripts are extremely messy and contradictory.

 

[cloudyday2]

When I was a believer, my faith wasn't static. For much of my life I did believe that salvation depended on grace, plus avoiding certain sins (as most Christians today seem to believe). At the very least one should commit different sins each time (i.e. "fall in sin") rather than doing the same ones over and over (i.e. "living in sin")
I was told in no uncertain terms that I had to choose between heaven or my record collection, and at the time I sadly believed it. But whether or not people believe a rock record itself will send them to hell, or merely increase their chances of going there, the net result is the same: you can't be a (true) Christian and listen to certain bands. Or certain instruments. Or breathe in a particular way, or arrange your limbs in a certain fashion. In other words, Satan has the ownership of certain frequencies, bodily movements, rhythms etc.

I suppose in fairness to the Christians who encouraged you to abstain from AC/DC, it seems that music can affect a person's state of mind, and the state of mind created by AC/DC is not particularly spiritual. Of course some contemporary Christian music isn't particularly spiritual either.

 

[dlamberth]

Yes especially the breathing exercises. They're meant to put you in a state of trance, (Buddhists call it emptiness meditation)

Just for the record, the state of emptiness meditation is just the opposite of a trance. They are two completely different things.

It's called emptiness not because the mind is empty but because it's not hanging onto presuppositions we usually add to experience in order to make sense of it: the stories and worldviews we fashion to explain who we are and the world we live in.

 

[holo]

I suppose in fairness to the Christians who encouraged you to abstain from AC/DC, it seems that music can affect a person's state of mind, and the state of mind created by AC/DC is not particularly spiritual. Of course some contemporary Christian music isn't particularly spiritual either.

I guess that's a matter of taste. I often have what I'd call spiritual (not in the sens that it's supernatural) experiences when I listen to music, and for me it can happen with AC/DC as well as with Mozart. Though it's more likely with the latter.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Am I summarizing that wrong?

I don't know, and don't think about those things you mentioned.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

You should read Bruce Metzger

https://confessionalbibliology.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/TheTextOfNewTestament4thEdit.pdf


Especially pages 250 to 280.

and 181
"The publication in 1881 of the Revised Version of the King James, or Authorized, Version of 1611 l aroused Burgon's indignation not only on the score of its unidiomatic English but even more because the revisers had followed an underlying Greek text substantially identical with that of Westcott and Hort. In a series of three learned articles in the (London) Quarterly Review, which were reprinted in a volume entitled The Revision Revised (London, 1883), Burgon used every rhetorical device at his disposal to attack both the English revision and the Greek Testament of Westcott and Hort. Burgon's argument was basically theological and speculative. As an ardent high churchman, he could not imagine that, if the words of Scripture had been dictated by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God would not have providentially prevented them from being seriously corrupted during the course of their transmission. Consequently, it was inconceivable to Burgon that the Textus Receptus, which had been used by the Church for centuries, could be in need of the drastic revision that Westcott and Hort had administered to it. What Burgon was apparently unable to comprehend was the force of the genealogical method, by which the later, conflated text is demonstrated to be secondary and corrupt.

 

[Romans 8]

When I was a believer, my faith wasn't static. For much of my life I did believe that salvation depended on grace, plus avoiding certain sins (as most Christians today seem to believe). At the very least one should commit different sins each time (i.e. "fall in sin") rather than doing the same ones over and over (i.e. "living in sin")
I was told in no uncertain terms that I had to choose between heaven or my record collection, and at the time I sadly believed it. But whether or not people believe a rock record itself will send them to hell, or merely increase their chances of going there, the net result is the same: you can't be a (true) Christian and listen to certain bands. Or certain instruments. Or breathe in a particular way, or arrange your limbs in a certain fashion. In other words, Satan has the ownership of certain frequencies, bodily movements, rhythms etc.

When one becomes a Christian he often recognizes the things that are of God and also the things of the world (Satan). He repents (changes his mind about Christ and the world), and turns in the other direction of sin. He doesn't do it because he's told to, he does it because he wants to. Everyone has their own area of sin which they struggle. For me, heavy metal music wasn't even a sacrifice to give up. I gave it up years ago not much longer after high school. I have other areas where I struggle and it's a daily battle but I understand the reasoning of how certain sins can be destructive.
Let's take ACDC for example. It's fairly obvious the band is Satanic. The acronym stands for anti Christ devils child. The lyrics are chalk full of Satanic references. And the music itself is aggressive and excites the brain. As a Christian, it's fairly easy for many people to lay it aside.

Jesus said; If. anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. It's a litmus test.

 

[Romans 8]

Just for the record, the state of emptiness meditation is just the opposite of a trance. They are two completely different things.

It's called emptiness not because the mind is empty but because it's not hanging onto presuppositions we usually add to experience in order to make sense of it: the stories and worldviews we fashion to explain who we are and the world we live in.

I've read loads of books on meditation. I studied Tibetan Buddhism for two years. Trust me on this, emptiness meditation is exactly how it sounds. In the Nygma tradition they call it rigpa, which is the length of time you have no thoughts (at all) while you meditate. The goal is to increase this rigpa until one can go for minutes or as long as possible. What do you think can happen when one creates a vacuum in their head? It leaves a place to be filled by something or someone.

 

[Romans 8]

1. The KJV is not the most accurate version today. It is flowery and poetic, but has hundreds of errors.

2. I've been keeping up with textual criticism. If you have read even a single book on the subject, you would know that "exact copies" is plainly untrue. You even acknowledge there are "two main manuscript traditions". Which is it? What we have today is "exact"ly the same as the originals, or there are variant "manuscript traditions"? Even the most conservative Christian scholars acknowledge there are tens of thousands of differences in the NT manuscripts alone. Some 90+% of those are minor misspellings and grammatically-acceptable syntax variants. Some of the remainder are text deletion, repetition, and misplacement. Past that, there are several deliberate corruptions of the NT, including interpolations and revisions. (Ex: Mark's long ending, the adulterous woman in John, the anti-Semitic remark in 1 Thessalonians.) Then there's the OT, where the MT, LXX, SP, and DSS contain thousands more differences, many of them also intentional. (Ex: MT Jeremiah rearranges several chapters and inserts whole paragraphs.) That's before even getting to pseudepigrapha in the NT. Saying the Bible we have today is based on "exact copies" is just not compatible with the evidence we have. It's a willful burying of one's head in the sand to avoid the reality that biblical manuscripts are extremely messy and contradictory.

Look, I apologize if I seem rude and I do not profess any level of expertise on the subject. I can see that you've spent a lot of time reading and respect should be given where it's due.
However, there are extremely minor differences in the manuscripts and in the case of the old testament specifically, there are some 5800 manuscripts in Greek alone. They have been compared and checked for errors, repeats, and missing parts. Between all of these manuscripts it's very easy to put together a very accurate book which reflects on the consistencies in the texts.

When I have more time I would like to show you a speech on the subject and see what you think. I'll post the link here if anyone else is interested or at your pm box. Thanks for taking the time to reply.