What if Modern Christianity is just the other end of the telephone?

[Albion]

Why incapable? There could be various reasons for why He chose to not protect it. Like He didn't protect Paul's lost letters, the ones that are clearly referred to in the Bible.

So, you have your version of the Bible, and Nathan has his, and each person wants to decide for himself what belongs in it and what does not. None of that does the first thing to cast doubt upon the actual Bible.

 

[atpollard]

The fact that we’re using a Bible which literally has Messianic prophecies removed from it. But the Septuagint had those prophecies included.

What doctrine does that change?

 

[Nazareth]

I think topics such as this afford each one the opportunity to example what they live from the scriptures we do have to read.

The teachings of Jesus were spoken in the beginning. And after he departed to Heaven. The first writing concerning his teachings were some 40 years later.

I think the Holy Spirit guides us to all truth. No one comes to Salvation,Jesus, unless the Father leads them.

If we believe in God, and use the Bible as he intends, as a map to his light, we'll be OK.

But if we start to say we believe in the Bible I think we've put an idol of man's creation in the way of the Spirits Word. In the beginning was The Word. And The Word was with God and the Word was God......and The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

The Word that saves is eternal spirit. Not paper and ink changing across centuries.

Just my two cents.

 

[Albion]

But if we start to say we believe in the Bible I think we've put an idol of man's creation in the way of the Spirits Word. In the beginning was The Word. And The Word was with God and the Word was God......and The Word became flesh and dwelt among us.

No, believing divine revelation does not to make the Bible be an idol. The mistake is, I assume, the result of thinking of the Bible as something to be worshipped, which nothing in Scripture ever says to do, nor does any Christian church that I know of hold that view. Rather, the Bible DIRECTS US TOWARDS the true God. As a result, we worship the true God and not some idol.

Without Scripture to do so, all we'd have are lame theories about the nature of God thought up by individuals working without the benefit of God's word.

 

[Josiah]

IF it turns out that Christianity is wrong, and when I die - I just die, then I was BLESSED - richly, deeply, wonderfully - with love, peace, joy, courage, strength.... and with a deep value of unconditional love, forgiveness and service. It wouldn't bless me AFTER death but gloriously before.



.

 

[Lees]

Why incapable? There could be various reasons for why He chose to not protect it. Like He didn't protect Paul's lost letters, the ones that are clearly referred to in the Bible.

Just because Paul wrote a letter didn't make it the Word of God. It is only the Word of God if God inspired that writing.

That is the reason that it and others also mentioned, are not part of the Bible. They are not the Word of God.

Lees

 

[Albion]

Just because Paul wrote a letter didn't make it the Word of God. It is only the Word of God if God inspired that writing.

That is the reason that it and others also mentioned, are not part of the Bible. They are not the Word of God.

Lees

Well, of course, doing that makes the individual the arbiter of the matter. It is, rather, THE CHURCH which made the determination, and it did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

We believe that the Holy Spirit has guided Christ's church over the centuries, and we have no less a reliable source for that POV than Jesus himself.

In addition, the Church did not make its decision on what writings were inspired simply on the basis of assuming something and then attributing it to the Holy Spirit. The fact is that the writings you are referring to were widely accepted by the various churches/congregations of the Christian world as being inspired prior to a decision made by any church council and the subsequent acceptance by the universal church of such a decision.

 

[Lees]

Well, of course, doing that makes the individual the arbiter of the matter. It is, rather, THE CHURCH which made the determination, and it did so under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

We believe that the Holy Spirit has guided Christ's church over the centuries, and we have no less a reliable source for that POV than Jesus himself.

In addition, the Church did not make its decision on what writings were inspired simply on the basis of assuming something and then attributing it to the Holy Spirit. The fact is that the writings you are referring to were widely accepted by the various churches/congregations of the Christian world as being inspired prior to a decision made by any church council and the subsequent acceptance by the universal church of such a decision.

So, I don't understand your complaint to me. What makes the individual the arbiter of the matter? I simply said just because Paul wrote something, didn't make it Scripture. And it doesn't.

What writings are you saying I am referring to. I was referring to what was labeled as 'Paul's lost letters'.

If you're referring to the apocryphal writings, it doesn't matter that 'various churches' accepted them. The churches that accepted them were the Alexandrian churches, which were way out in left field doctrine wise. The Church did not make any Old Testament book a part of the Canon. That was already set by the Jews in Palestine. Seethe Tanak.

The Churches responsibility was the New Testament Canon.

Lees

 

[Albion]

So, I don't understand your complaint to me.

I didn't think there was any complaint.

What makes the individual the arbiter of the matter?

You said yourself that it's your belief that Paul's letters ought not be in the Bible. That was a personal determination, whereas the Church made the decision about which writings belonged in the Bible and which not. That is very much as the Bible itself teaches.

But you are at liberty to do that. It is what many people do who feel it appropriate to tailor-make their religious beliefs in order to have them be in harmony with their consciences.

I simply said just because Paul wrote something, didn't make it Scripture. And it doesn't.

No, that isn't what you wrote. Here is what you wrote--

"Just because Paul wrote a letter didn't make it the Word of God. It is only the Word of God if God inspired that writing.

That is the reason that it and others also mentioned, are not part of the Bible. They are not the Word of God."

 

[Lees]

I didn't think there was any complaint.

You said yourself that it's your belief that Paul's letters ought not be in the Bible. That was a personal determination, whereas the Church made the decision about which writings belonged in the Bible and which not. That is very much as the Bible itself teaches.

But you are at liberty to do that. It is what many people do who feel it appropriate to tailor-make their religious beliefs in order to have them be in harmony with their consciences.


No, that isn't what you wrote. Here is what you wrote--

"Just because Paul wrote a letter didn't make it the Word of God. It is only the Word of God if God inspired that writing.

That is the reason that it and others also mentioned, are not part of the Bible. They are not the Word of God."

Again, you misrepresent what I have said.

Again, if you can't stay in the context of what I have written to another, then you shouldn't enter into it.

Lees

 

[Albion]

Again, you misrepresent what I have said.

I don't think so. And if I had done so, I would think you'd have shown how that was the case. You cannot do so, of course, which probably explains the reliance upon insults and pretending to be the moderator instead.

 

[Lees]

I don't think so. And if I had done so, I would think you'd have shown how that was the case. You cannot do so, of course, which probably explains the reliance upon insults and pretending to be the moderator instead.

All you had to do was go back to post #(46), which is my post to which you replied, which was to Lucian Hadoboch. There you can see his comment that I replied to. There you could pick up the context.

There you see he is talking about the 'lost letters' of Paul mentioned in the Bible.

My comment was to those 'lost letters' of Paul not being in the Bible.

My comment was not to 'the letters of Paul' in the Bible.

My comment was not 'the letters of Paul shouldn't be in the Bible".

You totally misrepresented what I said.

Lees

 

[Albion]

All you had to do was go back to post #(46), which is my post to which you replied, which was to Lucian Hadoboch. There you can see his comment that I replied to. There you could pick up the context.

There you see he is talking about the 'lost letters' of Paul mentioned in the Bible.

My comment was to those 'lost letters' of Paul not being in the Bible.

My comment was not to 'the letters of Paul' in the Bible.

My comment was not 'the letters of Paul shouldn't be in the Bible".

You totally misrepresented what I said.

Lees

Sorry, but you really cannot change what you posted just by saying, after all this time, that you wrote something else. That's what you're trying to do now. You could say that you meant something else, but doing that--especially when it happens over and over again--is to admit to having difficulty with the language. Try it anyway.

 

[Lees]

Sorry, but you really cannot change what you posted just by saying, after all this time, that you wrote something else. That's what you're trying to do now. You could say that you meant something else, but doing that--especially when it happens over and over again--is to admit to having difficulty with the language. Try it anyway.

Don't be sorry. Start paying attention. The context is clear. 'Paul's lost letters'.

I don't need to change what I said.

Lees

 

[Albion]

Don't be sorry.

Okay.

I'm not actually sorry, just hoping you will take a "word to the wise" and begin to state your ideas with enough precision that you don't leave the readers to guess at just what it was that you were trying to say...and then have you follow-up by insulting them for guessing wrong.

 

[Lees]

Okay.

I'm not actually sorry, just hoping you will take a "word to the wise" and begin to state your ideas with enough precision that you don't leave the readers to guess at just what it was that you were trying to say...and then have you follow-up by insulting them for guessing wrong.

It wasn't left to anyone to guess. The context was clear. You didn't pay attention to it. Your accusation to me was the insulting part, as it was not and is not true. And you continue to deny your mistake even after it's been pointed out.

The solution, don't respond to a post not addressed to you without knowing the context of what was said. We've all done it. Most acknowledge it and move on.

Lees

 

[Albion]

It wasn't left to anyone to guess.

If you believe that, expect more and more postings of yours to be misread (as you see it) by everyone else here. No one else experiences that problem, so why do you suppose it's your own experience over and over again?

 

[Lees]

If you believe that, expect more and more postings of yours to be misread (as you see it) by everyone else here. No one else experiences that problem, so why do you suppose it's your own experience over and over again?

If you want to misread them...misread them. That is not my problem. It is yours.

As I said, next time, pay attention.

Lees

 

[SetFree]

Ps 12:6-7
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
KJV

Even though there are Bible versions out there that are corrupted by men's doctrines, the Bible student is still able through disciplined study to find His Word still preserved today. And The Holy Spirit is our Guide in that, as God's Word was given to man via The Holy Spirit, and it is needed to properly understand His Word.

 

[Josiah]

Ps 12:6-7
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
KJV

Even though there are Bible versions out there that are corrupted by men's doctrines, the Bible student is still able through disciplined study to find His Word still preserved today. And The Holy Spirit is our Guide in that, as God's Word was given to man via The Holy Spirit, and it is needed to properly understand His Word.

ANY and ALL translations ("versions") will be influenced by bias. It's impossible to be otherwise. Translation involves choosing HOW the original will be conveyed into English. A translator will naturally want to do that as correctly as possible and so will do so in accord with what they view as correct.

This is just ONE of the disadvantages of a translation, ANY translation. Not only does something get "lost" in translation but something gets "added" in translation. It's one reason why it's good for a translation to be a group and ecumenical effort, not the product of one person or one denomination or one faith community.

This is why pastors, theologians and Bible scholars are fluent in both biblical/ancient Hebrew and koine Greek. My pastor doesn't use a translation, he comes to Bible class with his Greek and his Hebrew texts. When he reads a text to us, he's doing so from the Hebrew or Greek - translating as he does - so what he's saying rarely fits exactly with what I'm seeing in my ESV. Occasionally, in Bible study, someone may even note that, noting that the word he used and the word in their translation aren't the same, and he'll respond to why he chose the word he did.

Until very recently, the laity were "stuck" with a translation and pastors recommended one to we laity. Today, there are lots of tools available online for those who want to know the Hebrew and Greek - although again, those tools can also be bias.

The Holy Spirit is our Guide in that, as God's Word was given to man via The Holy Spirit, and it is needed to properly understand His Word.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is OUR guide. Yes the Word is given to MAN (and women, lol). There's a real danger when people change that to "ME" - God gave His Word to ME, so that it's MY role to arbitrate. Yeah.... there IS a sense in which this in practice is a bit individual but I'd subject that strongly to how the US arbitrated this, how the church catholic (the whole body of Christians - past and present) viewed this rather than how this one fallible dude feels at the moment. Seems to me there's WAY too much individualism in Christianity, too much ME and too little WE.

Martin Luther disagreed with a FEW things the individual Roman Catholic Church invented in the middle ages... and even some things that most Christians believed for a long time. BUT when he did, he felt strongly that the "burden of proof" was with HIM (not the church), he felt strongly he needed to have CLEAR and authoritative Scripture AND needed to show his view dominated in the early church. He rejected Purgatory, Transubstantiation, Infallibility of the RCC's bishop in Rome on that basis. Catholics might disagree that he did that, but my point is Luther deeply respected the ancient, ECUMENICAL faith of all God's people, placing it well above his own personal interpretations and views, holding himself to a far higher standard than the Councils, Creeds and clearly ecumenical views of Christianity. Satan simply has a harder time misleading ALL than misleading ONE. Even if that one is me.



.