drich0150
Regular Member
- Mar 16, 2008
- 6,407
- 437
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
As I have said many times to this point. Those books were not given to the church to use as the primary tool to get to know God.If being close to the events is important, why do you not accept the lists that were earlier than the list you use?
The 1.0 version of anything is rarely the final version of it. Your "list" was what was needed or simply what was available to those brothers. They are responsible to what was given them like we are responsible to what was given to us.The Didache and the Shepard of Herman appeared in the lists before your list.
This is a large assumption solely based on faith. It is difficult next to impossible for one man to represent the intentions or Heart of another, even if that man is standing next to him. Let alone if these two people stood 1700 years apart.The people who compiled your list lived 300 years after the apostles, and had no first hand knowledge of who wrote what.
Not to mention these "men" were just the tools used to compile scripture. What may have been trivial or even random to them was intended or was purposefully directed by the Holy Spirit. As the Bible is a work of the Holy Spirit, that was assembled by man. That is what makes it God's responsibility for what the bible contains, not ours/this generation.
Again, this is just a slighted conjecture and/or speculation to the nature of a man or a group of men who lived nearly 1700 years ago. None of which matters to anything, because they did not write or compile scripture...They didn't even know anybody who had known anybody who had known the apostles.
See previous commentAnd they have selected books that were apparently not even written by apostles.
Is it any less miraculous if or when God uses simple circumstance, or a well intentioned person to intervene in a desperate situation? You seem to want to remove God's involvement in all of this. Do you think God to be powerless in the compilation of His own story?Did the compilers of the NT use careful scrutiny, or did they resort to politics and faulty reasoning?
Indeed, if they were the ones who had the final say.Irenaeus argued there must be four gospels, because there are four winds. Others argued that the Apocalypse of Peter should not be allowed, because people were disturbed by its teaching. With reasoning like this, one might think they could end up with a faulty list.
So then you agree, no matter what list we wish to live by, it is a matter of Faith, that we live by it? If all of your belief and effort is only a matter of faith, then why not have faith in God to be God, and deliver us a book that will allow us to find Him through the great work He has done?My point has been that we have no way of knowing that certain books were selected of God to be in the New Testament. So no, I am not presupposing that we can know such things.
Or Again, do you think God foolish to allow His son to be beaten and crucified on the cross to only be able to reach out to a few generations of people, because some blind guides (in your estimation) messed up the compilation of the only resource that was made available to the Church.. and now God just waits till someone can "fix" what you apparently think He is unable to do for Himself.
I do not follow your logic here. It is like you look at the biased evidence that you are prepared to present, but refuse to look at anything else. Like the practical application of the Gospel to the generations of subsequent believers through what you believe to be a flawed bible, and yet God can not or will not do anything about it, despite the Great effort that was made from the beginning to Christ death..
If you are looking for the type of proof you have presented then you do not understand the most basic principle outlined in scripture (NT & OT) And you seem to be more than willing to over look the faith you must have to believe in your own preferred compilation of the bible.I have asked you several times how you know the books compiled into the New Testament are the ones that God chose. Unless you can prove that God chose your list, you have no proof that the books in your list contain the Mind of God.
My "proof" lies in everything I have witnessed to you up to this point.. Re read this post if you missed it.
Again that is why we must be faithful to all that we have been given. Did you read the parable I left from Mt?God may have had the power to select books. The point is that we have no clear way of knowing which books God selected.
See above.If God exists and created the universe, than I would think he could select and change books. Do you have any means of knowing which books he selected?
If not looking for change are you simply looking to shake another's faith?No, I do not think I am an instrument of God to make changes.
In part yes.What changes did God make to the RCC? Are you referring to the reformation?
Not "everybody" agrees that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but that doesn't make it any less so. Also the second half of your thought presupposes that God had a problem with the RC church from the beginning.Not everybody agrees that God caused the reformation, but even if he did, that was a long time after the 4th century.
One "we" don't know that God waited a long time to "fix" anything. In the case of the RC church I would say He didn't fix that particular denomination, Because they still fill a great need in the role of the over all Church. In the case of the reformation however, God preserved His church and allow those of us who were ready and able to grow past the confines of that specific denomination the ability to do so. Why because some of us were ready and needed to express our faith accordingly.If God can wait a long time to fix the church, why couldn't he wait a long time to fix the Bible?
As to why God waited to give us a different opportunity for organized worship, because "we" as the collective members of the Church or Members of the Body, needed our time in the desert.
As many members of the faith can attest we all spend time away from God to proof or strengthen our resolve. Peter's denial, Paul Spent several years after meeting Christ on the road to Damascus, before he started His ministry, Christ Himself spent forty days in the actual desert being tempted.
Our over all experience as a church is shaping up much like an individual's personal walk. we start out as infants of the word and need milk or the most basic spiritual nourishment. Then we Grow and test our faith, till one day like the prodigal son we wish to take our inheritance and leave. When and if we return, our relationship to the one we left will have been fortified. I believe the reformation was our return. God did necessarily make the change, we simply came home.
Why God couldn't do the same with the bible? Because there would be nothing to come home to... Not to mention what of the millions who died between the last utterance of the "true gospel" (Found in your NT) and the return to it? Does this description of God match the one found in any account of Scripture New or Old or even yours?
God is accountable for the content of His bible Because He said He would be. We are accountable to what we have been given Because He told us we are... The Actual content is a secondary issue, to the faithfulness we are supposed to have to what is given..
Remember, before you write up another personally righteous dissertation on the foolishness of blind faith. No matter what account you hold to be "truth" it is still an exercise using the same type of faith. So again why not use the faith when and where God wants us to use it?
Upvote
0