Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis
FK, isn't this essentially a Mohammaden way of looking at scripture? By that I mean the "faithful scribes" part?

The Pope recently made an interesting observation. He said that Islam cannot reform! Why? Because they believe that the Koran is the literal word of God, untouched by human hands. Thus, EVERYTHING in it is strictly God's will, not subject to interpretation. All that stuff about having four wives is meant for all time, because God HIMSELF wrote it.

That is certainly not how Christians read the Gospels, whether it is you (FK) or me. For example, when Jesus says "if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off, for it is better to enter the Kingdom of God..." Does any Christian take that literally? No, we understand that Jesus uses hyperbole, a human means of writing. Thus, we interpret correctly what Christ meant. HOWEVER, if we were to take the Scriptures as God's LITERAL WORD, we WOULD have to actually cut off our hand!!!

I just see the internal consistency and purity of the Bible as unequaled anywhere else in the history of literature. I can't believe there was any accident to it, or that any failing of man found inclusion

Think about this for a second...DIFFERENT AUTHORS wrote the Scriptures. They each wrote a particular book. At the same time, many other writings were floating around, so-called Apocrypha and so on. Now. What we have in the Bible is a compilation of books that happen to expound and verify the oral teachings given. Orthodox men of the Church read all the writings, looked at what they had been taught, and said "yep, the writing we call 'Gospel of Matthew' is from God, the writing called 'Gospel of Thomas' is a not from God". THAT is why the Scriptures have a wonderful uniformity. Because God guides a community that has continued to hold onto the teachings that they have received from Christ through the Apostles. These Councils were guided by the Spirit to select the writings of those who accurately represented the teachings of Christ as given to them.

Remember, the Apostolic Traditions came first and was the basis for determining WHAT would be Scriptures. Chronologically and theologically, Apostolic Tradition came first. Technically, God gave us the Scriptures as a tool for teaching the faith - but it is not absolutely necessary. Witness the first 50 years of Christianity, even longer. It is doubtful that even 100 years later, many communities were aware of all 27 books that we now call the New Testament.

Brother in Christ

2,104 posted on 01/29/2006 9:12:37 AM PST by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2095 | View Replies ]


To: jo kus; Forest Keeper

Very good, Joe.


2,105 posted on 01/29/2006 10:10:55 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2104 | View Replies ]

To: jo kus; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis
Apostolic Tradition came first. Technically, God gave us the Scriptures as a tool for teaching the faith - but it is not absolutely necessary.

Sorry but this is absolutely incorrect and nonsense. Apostolic tradition did not come first. The Hebrews were writing down things long before the Church was ever formed. And to say that the scriptures are not necessary flies in the face of many of the early church fathers' writings where they relied upon the scriptural teachings (please is Iraeneus works).

2,120 posted on 01/30/2006 5:08:06 AM PST by HarleyD (Man's steps are ordained by the LORD, How then can man understand his way? - Pro 20:24)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2104 | View Replies ]

To: jo kus; HarleyD; Kolokotronis
That is certainly not how Christians read the Gospels, whether it is you (FK) or me. For example, when Jesus says "if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off, for it is better to enter the Kingdom of God..." Does any Christian take that literally? No ... HOWEVER, if we were to take the Scriptures as God's LITERAL WORD, we WOULD have to actually cut off our hand!!!

First, I agree with what the Pope said about Islam. Thank goodness we Protestants don't think anything like that in this context. The scriptures ARE God's LITERAL WORD. Inside that literal word, God shows us that there are times when we are to take the word literally, and other times when we are to interpret. This idea is self contained in the Bible. One example are the parables of Jesus. Inside scripture itself, Jesus interprets His own parable, thus telling us clearly how we are to treat His own teaching. The trick is getting it right, but God proves that interpretation is sometimes necessary, and we Protestants fully know that.

What we have in the Bible is a compilation of books that happen to expound and verify the oral teachings given. Orthodox men of the Church read all the writings, looked at what they had been taught, and said "yep, the writing we call 'Gospel of Matthew' is from God, the writing called 'Gospel of Thomas' is a not from God". THAT is why the Scriptures have a wonderful uniformity.

I would respectfully disagree that the books of the Bible expound and verify the oral teachings (overall), because so many of them aren't there. I continue to ask "why is that?" I also reiterate that no man had any kind of a 'yup' or 'nope' vote in what went into the Bible. It was rigged from the beginning. When it came to the importance of the written way mankind would ever know God, He didn't nudge, He didn't take any chances or rely on luck of good human decisions, He went and got what He wanted. Thank God.

2,185 posted on 01/31/2006 7:01:00 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2104 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson