Posted on 06/27/2009 10:33:55 PM PDT by bdeaner
***Why post this subversive propaganda??? Why not post the words of God to prove your point??? Does any one care what some author thinks???***
You are actually making sense here; with the exception of the Church, no author can be sure of inspiration.
***Could God make an infallible man??? Sure he could...BUT HE DIDN’T, OTHER THAN JESUS CHRIST...***
Oh, oh. Are you saying that God made a man called Jesus Christ?
***And God could have hypnotized all the Jews into accepting Him as their Messiah in which case, the church age would never have show up, BUT HE DIDN’T.***
Very good. The OT is the story of the Jews waffling to and fro.
***Nope, your pope is definitely NOT an infallible man and your religion is definitely not an infallible religion...***
Not quite. The Pope is a fallible man. Yet, God promised us He will be with His Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
***You guys don’t get it...From the bottom to the top, you don’t get it...The Holy Spirit...Believers are filled with the same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead...The only ‘pope’ we have is the Holy Spirit, the Vicar of Christ on Earth...***
I have given you proofs of the stewardship of Peter; can you provide proofs that the Holy Spirit is the subordinate of Jesus?
***King Henry VIII? Did you get your history lessons from a Cracker Jack box or what?
Did I say King Henry the VIII???
Everyone knows the history of Tyndale and also know why he was hunted and ultimately killed by the RCC...***
Evidently some do not know. Henry VIII, no friend of the Catholic Church, had Tyndale hunted down and killed by the Belgians for treason against him. No Catholic Church involvement here.
***The Catholics didn’t want the scriptures to be readable in the hands of the average people and they bristled at the idea that Tyndal was using the Majority Texts to translate from***
Perhaps the idea that Cracket Jack boxes were used to recreate history for certain Protestants has merit.
***As for the early Church ‘canon’ the only thing that is sure is that every one quoted whatever they felt was true.***
Nice essay. A little more extended than the ones I hurriedly googled up.
***The oldest Bible (Codex Sinaiticus, c. 350 AD) has Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas as part of the canon.
It is clear, then, that canon fluctuated form person to person, and that even those who recognized pretty much the same books as we have today, still considered many others as either of value or outright canonical (inspired).***
Exactly. Where are the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, etc.? All of them floated around to one degree or another. I remember a conversation I had with a CofC preacher who in a fit of apoplexia (debating Scripture with a lowly Catholic - me) told me that if the KJV was good enough for Jesus it was good enough for me. I think that he was just angry enough to have believed it.
It is amazing the folks that believe that Jesus and the Apostles walked around with a KJV tucked in their pouches.
Did I say it was? Where did the value judgment come from?
The pieces of the Church puzzle, Mark, are so minuscule, and so numerous, a quick Google check will do the Church and the seeker injustice. I spend hours, days, weeks, researching this stuff. It's fascinating and yet it's also very revealing that the mental image we have is not what it was all about way back then, even if the terms used were the same.
Where are the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, etc.? All of them floated around to one degree or another
Spot on, Mark. The Acts of Peter were at one time read in Rome. Early Christianity, even the orthodox party that eventually prevailed, was profoundly heterodox in some aspects.
It is amazing the folks that believe that Jesus and the Apostles walked around with a KJV tucked in their pouches.
Pretty much. Some seem to believe the Bible fell down from the sky like the manna. Scary.
***A little more extended than the ones I hurriedly googled up
The pieces of the Church puzzle, Mark, are so minuscule, and so numerous, a quick Google check will do the Church and the seeker injustice. I spend hours, days, weeks, researching this stuff. It’s fascinating and yet it’s also very revealing that the mental image we have is not what it was all about way back then, even if the terms used were the same.***
Exactly so. The image that many of our separated brethren have is of a prepackaged Twinkie Bible that the Catholics spent 1500 years suppressing until the magic of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli (the weird old uncle that nobody talks about) et al zapped a KJV into every pot. At the same time, they also believe that the NT was written and correct before Jesus was even born so that every country gathering had that KJV to pound on before Jesus was even grown.
The way things were is not the popular version.
***Where are the Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Judas, etc.? All of them floated around to one degree or another
Spot on, Mark. The Acts of Peter were at one time read in Rome. Early Christianity, even the orthodox party that eventually prevailed, was profoundly heterodox in some aspects.***
The loss of such as Origen resulted from the way that the early Church worked. In a Church closer to today, Origen might have been reclaimed.
***It is amazing the folks that believe that Jesus and the Apostles walked around with a KJV tucked in their pouches.
Pretty much. Some seem to believe the Bible fell down from the sky like the manna. Scary.***
The folks that have tried to save my soul that have no idea whatsoever of what Christianity really is, astounds me. My wife’s best friend (a preacher’s daughter in the CofC) breathlessly informed me that the only books of the Bible that I needed for my salvation were Luke, Acts, and Paul.
Later, she admitted to my wife that perhaps, just perhaps, even some Catholic might be admitted to Heaven. On a case by case exceptional basis only.
I thought salvation comes from faith and faith from God, not from the Bible. But they make things up as they go along...
Later, she admitted to my wife that perhaps, just perhaps, even some Catholic might be admitted to Heaven. On a case by case exceptional basis only.
How does she know that? Is she on God's Rescue Board or something? :)
You're not insane, maybe a little too smart for your own good, but not totally insane.
You asked a question of me and I told you that I would answer to the best of my ability, and I did. And you scoffed.
Will you permit me to ask one question of you?
Whether I have your permission or not, I'll ask anyway...
Are you a believer?
Judging from your posts on this thread and others, I perceive that you're not. With such comments as “I don't know what God is” and the likes of, "I don't know my purpose in life", you seem to me to be lost.
You accuse me of “circular reasoning”, but you're the one running in circles like a chicken with it's head cut off spouting meaningless drivel. I am at peace. You seem to be in torment.
“I don't know what God is.” God took upon Himself flesh and gave Himself a face, and that face is Christ. If you'll get alone with God and His Word and pray, He'll reveal Himself to you. He promises us as much.
***My wife’s best friend (a preacher’s daughter in the CofC) breathlessly informed me that the only books of the Bible that I needed for my salvation were Luke, Acts, and Paul.
I thought salvation comes from faith and faith from God, not from the Bible. But they make things up as they go along... ***
They sure do. I am just fine with the entire Bible, including the Deuterocanonicals. It’s funny how different denominations focus on different books. The WWCoG focuses entirely on Revelation, for instance.
***Later, she admitted to my wife that perhaps, just perhaps, even some Catholic might be admitted to Heaven. On a case by case exceptional basis only.
How does she know that? Is she on God’s Rescue Board or something? :)***
Many of our separated brethren believe that they can give policy to God. It is only a short step from believing that one knows one’s eternal salvation pre Judgement, to believing that one knows others’ eternal salvation pre Judgement.
***You’re not insane, maybe a little too smart for your own good, but not totally insane.***
Thank you, Doctor Markos. I am relieved that kosta is not totally insane. Might he be let out during the day, do you think, if properly medicated and brought back at night?
***If you’ll get alone with God and His Word and pray, He’ll reveal Himself to you.***
Not only a qualified psychiatrist, but a latter day angel Gabriel speaking for God. Wow; I hadn’t realized just whom we were debating with.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
With all due respect, RM, it was Mr. Rogers who took the liberty of (1) reading my mind and (2) calling me (personally) insane (see post 2776, last sentence). No warning to him.
Now it seems one can't say somone's Angel Gabriel, because that's making it personal, but reading someone's mind and calling someone insane is not? Oh boy!
From the Religion Forum guidelines on my profile page:
If the other guy in the dispute was given a warning, consider yourself warned as well.
I did not. I followed up with another question.
Are you a believer?
I don't have to be. The world exists. Something caused it to be here. What that something is I don't know.
With such comments as “I don't know what God is” and the likes of, "I don't know my purpose in life", you seem to me to be lost.
Well, then why don't you tell me what God is and when you are done with that why don't you tell me how do you know that?
Then you can tell me what your purpose is and how do you know that. Much obliged.
You accuse me of “circular reasoning”, but you're the one running in circles like a chicken with it's head cut off spouting meaningless drivel. I am at peace. You seem to be in torment
There was no accusation. You are free to go back and see why it was circular reasoning. My questions are menaingless drivel but a priori assumptions are not?
What torment is there in acceptance?
“I don't know what God is.” God took upon Himself flesh and gave Himself a face, and that face is Christ.
How do you know that? Does it say so even in the Bible? I believe John says that the Word became flesh. He didn't 'cake' himself with flesh.
If you'll get alone with God and His Word and pray, He'll reveal Himself to you. He promises us as much.
Is that a fact or something you a priori assume to be true?
That’s fair, RM. Sometimes we forget how much there is to read and moderate and how demaning it is.
***Do not make this thread “about” individual Freepers. That is also a form of “making it personal.”***
Understood.
You chose it - as part of your self appointed goal. It's logical to assume you choice was not random but the result of your judgement of its value.
Do you honestly believe that? Our choices can be reflexive, random, judgmental or "just because." Do you think it's possible it's not really my goal, but curiosity?
Your post is pretty much mind-reading like I noticed with some other posters here. My choice does not have to be my "self-appointed goal," (such as retirement, getting married, children, etc.), but a mere diverison of curiosity, so it's not logical to assume anything about my or anyone else's thought processes.
Maybe this maind-reading streak is just characteristic of a particular crowd of poeple who, by their own admission, live by and subject everythng to a priori assumptions without realizing how wrong that can be.
I’m only trying here to communicate effectively and efficiently what I said before about values, logic, conditional and absolute. The same communication, only by an example or an illustration. For efficiency sake.
Only after it’s communicated effectively, can we discuss and evaluate it. We’re not to that point yet.
I’m not trying to read your mind, I’m asking you. And I’m not judging the rightness or wrongness of your reply. Just discussing the process.
What you choose and value is not the point I’m focusing on. Whatever you said your purpose or self-appointed goal was, the question is the same: Why did you choose this? Why is it better than its contrary. As an illustration for means of communication.
It is logical to assume that our choices illustrate what we value - that’s why we choose them. Our choices reflect what we value. Certainly there are instincts, reflexes, random picks of numbers at Las Vegas.
To examine values, these latter are of little use. We would need something a bit larger. I picked why you are posting your views on this topic to me, because I believe it large enough to illustrate the terms and points I’m attempting to communicate.
I’m asking you, and not judging the reply. Examining the process. Working backwards in examination of our choices and the values they reflect.
You also said: “Try just enjoying life.” I would ask “why is enjoying life better than not?”
You said: “ I get up in the morning and go about my business”. I would ask “why is going about your business better than not?”
The answers lead us up the hierarchy of our values.
Before, I said that ultimately we think we know what has value or we accept someone else’s, or we go about it unaware.
I don’t see you in the last category. Your are inquisitive, knowledgeable and look for truth. Which is why I value your responses and this discussion with you.
You included learning in your reply before, as your intent or goal, I asked “why is learning better than not learning?”
You objected at this point. To attempt to overcome your objection: Is learning better than not learning? (to you).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.