[kosta50]

I am cutitng this post into several rpelies...

I don't think God abdicated and left it up to anyone to figure out

 

Then why did it take the Church 300 years to come up with a statement of what is believed?

 

It seems logical to me that if God was going to take such great care in inspiring His word to be exactly what He wanted it to be then He would also take similar care in having it assembled into one book.

 

It wasn't one book but a collection of many books, among which were the books currently considered a canon, but so were amny currentl considered profane.

 

And while you are surely right that even today not everyone agrees on its composition, I still find it remarkable that there is agreement to the degree there is given the amount of theological disagreement between Christians on so many other issues.

 

The agreement is remarkably superficial. Scratch the surface, as I mentioned earlier, and you will find that, while Christians use the same words, they mean different things to different communities.

I would think it axiomatic among Christians that the Bible wasn't assembled for the whole world but for Christians only (including future Christians).

The Torah was assembled for Christians? The Gentiles are included only insofar as the Seven Noachide Laws are concerned. The Gentiles have no other role in In God's plan. The Torah is about the Jews and for the Jews, and Christians are not Jews.

The entirety of the OT points directly to Christ, so there would have been plenty to check. :) Jesus said: John 5:45-47...

This is like a Mormon "proving" the entirety of the OT points to Latter day Saints because the Book of Mormon says so. Moses did not write a single word about Jesus or anyone like him, except in convoluted Christian rationalizations and alterations, such as demonstrated here.

The author argues that Matthew misquotes and/or distorts Jewish prophets, contradicts other Gospels, and makes up stories by providing bible verses and references.

I am not posting his arguments (they have already been posted on FR on July 21, 2010 by another poster) because my intention is not to get into the polemics, but to simply remind you that things are not as clear cut as you seem to present them.

I don't think God abdicated and left it up to anyone to figure out

 

Then why did it take the Church 300 years to come up with a statement of what is believed?

 

It seems logical to me that if God was going to take such great care in inspiring His word to be exactly what He wanted it to be then He would also take similar care in having it assembled into one book.

 

It wasn't one book but a collection of many books, among which were the books currently considered a canon, but so were amny currentl considered profane.

 

And while you are surely right that even today not everyone agrees on its composition, I still find it remarkable that there is agreement to the degree there is given the amount of theological disagreement between Christians on so many other issues.

 

The agreement is remarkably superficial. Scratch the surface, as I mentioned earlier, and you will find that, while Christians use the same words, they mean different things to different communities.

I would think it axiomatic among Christians that the Bible wasn't assembled for the whole world but for Christians only (including future Christians).

The Torah was assembled for Christians? The Gentiles are included only insofar as the Seven Noachide Laws are concerned. The Gentiles have no other role in In God's plan. The Torah is about the Jews and for the Jews, and Christians are not Jews.

The entirety of the OT points directly to Christ, so there would have been plenty to check. :) Jesus said: John 5:45-47...

This is like a Mormon "proving" the entirety of the OT points to Latter day Saints because the Book of Mormon says so. Moses did not write a single word about Jesus or anyone like him, except in convoluted Christian rationalizations and alterations, such as demonstrated here.

The author argues that Matthew misquotes and/or distorts Jewish prophets, contradicts other Gospels, and makes up stories by providing bible verses and references.

I am not posting his arguments (they have already been posted on FR on July 21, 2010 by another poster) because my intention is not to get into the polemics, but to simply remind you that things are not as clear cut as you seem to present them.

I don't think God abdicated and left it up to anyone to figure out

Then why did it take the Church 300 years to come up with a statement of what is believed?

It seems logical to me that if God was going to take such great care in inspiring His word to be exactly what He wanted it to be then He would also take similar care in having it assembled into one book.

It wasn't one book but a collection of many books, among which were the books currently considered a canon, but so were amny currentl considered profane.

And while you are surely right that even today not everyone agrees on its composition, I still find it remarkable that there is agreement to the degree there is given the amount of theological disagreement between Christians on so many other issues.

The agreement is remarkably superficial. Scratch the surface, as I mentioned earlier, and you will find that, while Christians use the same words, they mean different things to different communities.

I would think it axiomatic among Christians that the Bible wasn't assembled for the whole world but for Christians only (including future Christians).

The Torah was assembled for Christians? The Gentiles are included only insofar as the Seven Noachide Laws are concerned. The Gentiles have no other role in In God's plan. The Torah is about the Jews and for the Jews, and Christians are not Jews.

The entirety of the OT points directly to Christ, so there would have been plenty to check. :) Jesus said: John 5:45-47...

This is like a Mormon "proving" the entirety of the OT points to Latter day Saints because the Book of Mormon says so. Moses did not write a single word about Jesus or anyone like him, except in convoluted Christian rationalizations and alterations, such as demonstrated here.

The author argues that Matthew misquotes and/or distorts Jewish prophets, contradicts other Gospels, and makes up stories by providing bible verses and references.

I am not posting his arguments (they have already been posted on FR on July 21, 2010 by another poster) because my intention is not to get into the polemics, but to simply remind you that things are not as clear cut as you seem to present them.

[Forest Keeper]

FK: I don't think God abdicated and left it up to anyone to figure out.

Then why did it take the Church 300 years to come up with a statement of what is believed?

God decided to wait for 300 years before pulling together the convenience of one "official" canon. The elect were still being taught the correct things before that happened, though. It wasn't like the collection and selection of the canon exposed the elect to correct teaching for the first time.

The agreement [on the canon] is remarkably superficial. Scratch the surface, as I mentioned earlier, and you will find that, while Christians use the same words, they mean different things to different communities.

The last part is certainly true, but in debate we are far better off with being able to start with the same words, at least, and in many cases similar worldviews. There's only so far an atheist and a believer can get with debating scripture since there is no common starting ground.

FK: I would think it axiomatic among Christians that the Bible wasn't assembled for the whole world but for Christians only (including future Christians).

The Torah was assembled for Christians? The Gentiles are included only insofar as the Seven Noachide Laws are concerned. The Gentiles have no other role in In God's plan. The Torah is about the Jews and for the Jews, and Christians are not Jews.

As you know the Torah [5 books part if there is other] is part of the Bible, but they are different assemblies. As far as who is a Jew and who is a Gentile is concerned, the NT makes it clear that a true Jew and a true Christian are both true believers in the One true God.

The author argues that Matthew misquotes and/or distorts Jewish prophets, contradicts other Gospels, and makes up stories by providing bible verses and references.

But the author claims as fact that both the Christian and Jewish Holy books are fictitious (note at bottom of link). The Bible tells us plainly that to such as these the word of God will be utter nonsense. I can't take him seriously when the book I consider authoritative says not to.