Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
IS THERE a schism caused by controversy over whether the Gospel of John should be in the Bible??Hello, I don't believe the writings attributed to Shaul are the writings of the same man, nor do i hold that most of them are reliable scripturally. But not only Paul(Shaul) but 'John' too. The schism that John (the book) and 'John 1,2+3' have caused in the faith, is intolerable.
IS THERE a schism caused by controversy over whether the Gospel of John should be in the Bible??
If the Bible is so important to the faith, why didn't Jesus write anything down? If it's because he was from an oral tradition society, why do we give such credibility to the written accounts and letters that appear to have been written much later? I know this is all post-modern, emergent crap to some, but to me and many my age, it is a nagging question.
Will Christianity always use the Bible as the final arbiter for apologetics and theology? If not, what will take its place? Can principles like historical criticism, truth, love, community, grace, or forgiveness ever overcome Sola Scriptura?
IS THERE a schism caused by controversy over whether the Gospel of John should be in the Bible??
Hello. I don't think one has to hold to any particular statement of inerrancy to consider the NT to be the best source we have regarding the beginnings of Christianity.
I think a historical investigation will lead us to the same conclusion. For example, why were these particular books chosen for inclusion in the NT when other well-regarded books like the Shepherd of Hermas were not? The primary reason was that the early church leaders reserved their highest respect for works which could be traced to witnesses of Christ. That meant an apostle (Matthew, Peter, John, etc.) or an apostle's companion (Mark, Luke, etc.).
Regarding the assembling of the NT, a book I can personally recommend is Reinventing Jesus. Daniel B. Wallace is one of the authors, so you know it will be well-researched.
are any of you willing to set aside your bible-bias long enough to accept the following challenge. alternate reading genesis and the Apocryphon of John while asking yourself, which one sounds more like Jesus? We have clear historical evidence that Jesus had the authority to select and train the disciples before sending them "another Comforter to finish preparing them to write scripture. We have no credible evidence to presume that anyone else was qualified to write scripture. Nor do we have any credible evidence that the people who selected the books of the bible had the authority to do so. How does it make more sense to put trust for finding the true faith in anyone else but Jesus, His Disciples and what they wrote.
To what else would you expect a Christian appeal to defend theological arguments? Just curious.Why do all christian theological arguments turn on biblical proof-texts?
Absence of writings from Jesus does not preclude the possibility that he wrote something down. Just saying...If the Bible is so important to the faith, why didn't Jesus write anything down?
To combat Satan's temptations, Jesus quoted "[what was] written." He always honored the "scriptures" and nothing he preached was incompatible with the "written word." The oral traditions of the Jews, on the other hand, while perhaps viewed by some as equally binding as the law, were not given such honor by Jesus. In fact, he was seen condemning certain Jews for exalting their tradition above the intent of the law (as opposed to, although not to the exclusion of, the written law alone).If it's because he was from an oral tradition society, why do we give such credibility to the written accounts and letters that appear to have been written much later?
Probably. Traditional Christianity, from my point of view, has no other source from which to draw, unless you're talking about one of the sects that claims that truth is established on additional bases, such as on tradition, the Magisterium, etc.I know this is all post-modern, emergent crap to some, but to me and many my age, it is a nagging question.
Will Christianity always use the Bible as the final arbiter for apologetics and theology?
To me, truth is "independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself" (D&C 93:30), which frees one who so believes from the shackles of popular or traditional sources of truth. So the answer to your question depends on the person responding to it.If not, what will take its place? Can principles like historical criticism, truth, love, community, grace, or forgiveness ever overcome Sola Scriptura?
Because if theology is not constrained by Biblical revelation, you can pull whatever nonsense you like out of your head, and call the result Christianity.
Theology conducted without reference to the Bible is like science conducted without the annoyance of having to take physical reality into account. Fine if you are more concerned with doing your own thing than with discovering the truth.
To what else would you expect a Christian appeal to defend theological arguments? Just curious.
Absence of writings from Jesus does not preclude the possibility that he wrote something down. Just saying...
To combat Satan's temptations, Jesus quoted "[what was] written." He always honored the "scriptures" and nothing he preached was incompatible with the "written word." The oral traditions of the Jews, on the other hand, while perhaps viewed by some as equally binding as the law, were not given such honor by Jesus. In fact, he was seen condemning certain Jews for exalting their tradition above the intent of the law (as opposed to just the written law).
Probably. Traditional Christianity, from my point of view, has no other source from which to draw, unless you're talking about one of the sects that claims that truth is established on additional bases, such as on tradition, the Magisterium, etc.
To me, truth is "independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself" (D&C 93:30), which frees one who so believes from the shackles of popular or traditional sources of truth. So the answer to your question depends on the person responding to it.
Then your OP seems meaningless to me, since truth is neither historical nor philosophical. It is simply truth.I find it absolutely fascinating that Mormons, who have added to the canon as late as less than 200 years ago, can make any inerrancy argument with a straight face. I'm not so much talking about truth in a philosophical sense any way. Strictly historical in this thread.
To me, this is a non sequitur of sorts. First the analogy to science is (a) basically an attempted appeal to authority,No its not. The point is valid that if you are going to end up with something other than drivel, anything claiming to be an attempt at truth must have a reference point outside of your own head.
assuming I (and others) trust Science to be the guide to accessing Truth,
You are using a computer, aren't you?
and (b) imprecise and perhaps inaccurate, as the scientific method of ascertaining truths cannot be separated from observation of physical reality (step one of the scientific method),
Tell that to the string theorists.
while theology can be separated from biblical revelation, otherwise there would be no religion outside of and apart from Christianity.
christian theology cannot, and that is supposedly what your question was about.
I would agree that having an objective text allows the church to maintain neat borders between what is orthodox and what is heresy, and this has been the case for centuries. But would this argument make sense in the year 50 AD or 100 AD, or even 300 AD? Was the early church's theology based on biblical revelation? If not, were they not Christian?
a.) For the Church of the first century, the Old Testament was their Bible. And there were eye witnesses around as well as oral tradition.
b.) By about 150, a prototype canon was already in existence. So much so that Marcion could be labelled a heretic for wanting to butcher that canon.
While it is true that theology is conducted with reference to the bible (or other holy books for that matter), it is also true that the bible (and other holy books) were created by theologians, both amateur and professional) attempting to propagate certain dogmas within the church and attempting to root out detractors.
The purpose of the canon is to preserve a historical record of the events upon which the Christian religion is based. Some of the books of the Bible were written with that specific purpose in mind, others do it in a way which is incidental to the intention of the authors.
At this point I decide that I have typed enough.
You are correct, but your vision of reality is marred by blindness because God ordained the Inquisition or the Crusades or all of the Wars of Religion in Europe and the Holocaust! All the Jews who went whoring after other gods and refused the Holy One of Israel commandments. This is true even today when His plan is being put into place to make Zion the Kingdom of God here on Earth!..the scientific method of ascertaining truths cannot be separated from observation of physical reality
No wonder Christ cried with frustration at so many unbelievers that think God had no oversight in the process.To me it is just as likely that Deist God had no oversight in the process. Assuming God had control over the situation and intervened in history would not rule out that God ordained the Inquisition or the Crusades or all of the Wars of Religion in Europe over the centuries.
The trouble started when people forgot what they were instructed:NO, the trouble started when a group of people decided that they had god given authority to decide for everyone which writings were scripture or not. They were wrong.
Good point. In general, those books were left out because people didn't believe they were written by the claimed apostolic authors. That's still the consensus opinion today: the NT books were written in the 1st century and the gnostic works in the 2nd.Thank you for your comments.
Regarding the conclusions made from historical investigation, don't we see many early christian texts appealing to apostolic authority, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Mary, etc., which were later deemed heretical? Granted we only have bits and pieces of these, but is this not evidence that the fact that a book's title and content reflected apostolic authority insufficient to prove that the book is the Word of God?
Their agenda was to preserve the words of Jesus. The best sources available to them were the writings of witnesses and their companions. The dating of books is quite complicated and takes into account many factors, such as the first time they were quoted. The book I recommended covers such things.I think the early fathers chose the best books they could to satisfy their agenda. If their agenda was to promote a certain theology or Christology, they would promote, read from and copy certain books that they received. For all we know, so accounts were written to make an argument or refute a heresy. The dating of all the canonical books is not based on the autographs, but on philological and hermeneutic approaches (e.g., the letters of Paul must predate the destruction of the Temple in 69 AD because they do not reference the destruction of the Temple).
I don't either, but I don't know much about 1st-century historians.Even these canonical books are second-hand accounts to me. I suppose a corollary question is why did only the apostles possess magic powers (the ability to perform miracles), and why are there few (if any, as I am not aware of any) corroborating accounts of the Apostles in contemporary histories (e.g., Josephus refers to the stoning of Peter after the rebellion caused by Saulus, but does not account for the stoning of Stephen commissioned/approved of by Saul). I know of no non-christian early sources who cite to the miracles of the Apostles.
He's a textual critic, one of the best. If he's also a believer, what's wrong with that? Do you restrict your reading to unbelievers?Finally, you say I should read Daniel Wallace, but is he not coming from the presupposition that the canon is the inspired word of god?
Here on Christian Forums it is considered unethical to make a claim without backing it up with an actual source. What, if any, source do you have for your claim?what you are quoteing does not come from scripture. to be scripture it must be without error. the o.t. is so full of errors you would have to be blind to miss them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?