In the last few years I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is not the “inerrant, complete and exclusive” word of God. Kellyjay has also recently acknowledged this.
What are the consequences of this for a Christian?
Does it mean a collapse of belief and faith?
For me it has meant liberty to think freely about the nature of God, it means freedom from established dogma and it means that the gospel makes more workable, practical sense.
It means that the Bible is not “holy”, as it is usually titled. Rather it is an insightful and informative expose of the thinking of ancient Hebrews on the nature of their God and a lens through which God may speak directly to the seeker. It also means that god may speak through other sources which add to the positive narrative.
It also frees the laity from the control of the clergy. Freedom to think about God for oneself.
Thoughts?
@divegeester saidLiar
In the last few years I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is not the “inerrant, complete and exclusive” word of God. Kellyjay has also recently acknowledged this.
What are the consequences of this for a Christian?
Does it mean a collapse of belief and faith?
For me it has meant liberty to think freely about the nature of God, it means freedom from establi ...[text shortened]... rees the laity from the control of the clergy. Freedom to think about God for oneself.
Thoughts?
@divegeester saidThe bible has one purpose and that is to give someone enough information about how to get into the Kingdom of God. A man who reads the bible, maybe joins a church and in the end is cast out of the Kingdom of God, has failed and the bible served no purpose, even though he knew the entire bible.
In the last few years I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is not the “inerrant, complete and exclusive” word of God. Kellyjay has also recently acknowledged this.
What are the consequences of this for a Christian?
Does it mean a collapse of belief and faith?
For me it has meant liberty to think freely about the nature of God, it means freedom from establi ...[text shortened]... rees the laity from the control of the clergy. Freedom to think about God for oneself.
Thoughts?
The bible contains certain flaws and there are several contradictory statements in it. Only a fool or a bible worshipper will doubt that. But these flaws are not significant and they do not change the message of eternal life by Christ and the Apostles.
Many will enter the Kingdom of God without even reading the bible, some without knowing or hearing about Christ. Jesus died for all and by his death all of mankind received the free gift of justification. All that is left for them to do is to live righteously, and this is possible because God has written His laws in the heart or all people. Churches and their dogma mean very little. People can safely walk away from these institutions, and listen instead to their conscience and they will live righteously. Churches have become the enemy of righteousness ... sadly.
@divegeester saidThe function of dogma is to terminate doubt, make curiosity unnecessary, and to define and delegitimize dissidence.
In the last few years I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is not the “inerrant, complete and exclusive” word of God. Kellyjay has also recently acknowledged this.
What are the consequences of this for a Christian?
Does it mean a collapse of belief and faith?
For me it has meant liberty to think freely about the nature of God, it means freedom from establi ...[text shortened]... rees the laity from the control of the clergy. Freedom to think about God for oneself.
Thoughts?
@divegeester saidliar
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/attributes-of-god.195809/page-10#post_4617123
Have a look and get back to me when you’re ready to be honest and less abusive.
@divegeester saidBtw if anyone has evidence to the contrary then please do correct me. It would be appreciated.
In the last few years I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is not the “inerrant, complete and exclusive” word of God.
@divegeester saidGreetings, Dive,
In the last few years I have come to the conclusion that the Bible is not the “inerrant, complete and exclusive” word of God. Kellyjay has also recently acknowledged this.
What are the consequences of this for a Christian?
Does it mean a collapse of belief and faith?
For me it has meant liberty to think freely about the nature of God, it means freedom from establi ...[text shortened]... rees the laity from the control of the clergy. Freedom to think about God for oneself.
Thoughts?
Thanks for starting the thread. It's a gigantic topic, we won't get through it all in one thread. I take you to be a genuine inquirer after spiritual gnosis, that you are genuinely consternated by some of the replies you get from some alleged Christians here (as am I), and I think you would greatly benefit from doing some historical research into how, why, and when the book came into existence. By "historical" I mean, read historians' works on the Bible, because the Bible itself does not tell you what you want to know about how, why, and when it was written, and Christian theologians won't give you the truth about it either because they have an 'agenda.' Certain posters here who think they are Christians won't give you the truth about it as a book, because they don't know the truth about it as a book; all they can do is repeat quotes from it -- book worshipers they be, not worshipers of God.
There are many competent histories of how the Bible came to be; I will recommend one to you: Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorized Version. Fox is a highly respected historian of this period and has published several books, one on Alexander the Great and another on early Christianity in the Roman Empire, which have received critical acclaim.
At this point, I wish to make a few very general remarks; we can dive (pun intended) into details as the thread progresses.
1. The Bible as we know it today did not exist in Jesus's time. It was cobbled together later from a plethora of scrolls held to be sacred by various early Christian communities. The critical juncture was the Council of Nicea convened in AD 325, where and when the canon was established. Prior to AD 325, the sacred writings (scrolls) were very numerous, much more so than were canonized, and spread out all over the Mediterranean and Near East.
2. The proof of the diversity of early Christianity can be read in Paul's Letters, but only if you read between the lines. Paul is admonishing the Churches of Corinth and Ephesus because he thinks they are doing it wrong. How can this be?? Each of those Churches must have been founded by one of the Apostles, and how can Paul, who never knew Jesus, think it was up to him to correct the Apostles?? Is this not monstrous presumption?? Well, we'll get to that later. The point here is that early Christian communities, within one generation of Jesus, were already teaching different doctrines and engaging in divergent practises.
3. The purpose of the Council of Nicea was not only to establish a cannon, that is, to simplify and codify the teaching, but, more importantly, to centralize authority for the canon, for the doctrine, at Rome.
4. The Bible, as it was canonized in 325 AD, was not written for the laity. It was written for the clergy, to simplify and codify the doctrine, in order that: a) the priesthood would be preaching a single consistent doctrine (contrary to the divergence noted above and evidenced in Paul's Letters); and b) that the Roman bishops should be in control of doctrine. It was never intended that the laity read it; it was intended that the priesthood should preach it to (read: at) the laity. Most of the laity would not have been able to read it anyway, for two reasons: 1st, it was written in the scholar's languages (Greek and Latin) whereas most people, outside the clergy and the educated (senatorial) class at Rome, were illiterate, and it remained so for over a thousand years. 2d, books (physical objects) were time-consuming and very costly to produce; only rich abbeys and rich Churches would have possessed copies. The Church bitterly opposed Luther's translation of the Bible into the vernacular (German) and bitterly opposed Gutenberg's mass-production of it, precisely to prevent the laity from getting their hands on it and forming their own opinions about it. The Church bitterly opposed anyone outside the Church controlling or interpreting the doctrine. The Church hierarchy still bitterly opposes this, to this very day: "Outside the Church there is no salvation" declared Pope John Paul II, echoing Cyprian, "He cannot have God for his Father who does not have the Church for his mother."
5. The Bible is a snapshot, frozen in time at AD 325. The Catholic and Orthodox traditions hold that the Bible is not the primary source whereby the Holy Spirit makes the Will of God known to man. It is tertiary. As any Catholic or Orthodox bishop will tell you, the Bible is only the menu, not the real meal. Two other sources come first, and the Revelation is continuing (i.e., not in the Bible). More on this topic later....
6. Pay attention to Rajk and separate the wheat from the chaff: what Jesus taught, he taught to rustic illiterates, whores, day-laborers, the outcast and the poor in spirit. Theirs was not to believe in any doctrines or read any sacred books. Theirs was to live as he lived, not throwing stones at adulteresses, but treating every poor beggar as if he were the Godhead himself in human form.
As I said, this is a huge field of discussion, too much to cover in one thread.
Cheers,
moon
@moonbus saidI was brought up to believe that the (Holy) Bible was the inspired, inerrant, complete and exclusive … word of God. This tenant was unquestionable albeit lorded in a gentle way. My parents were/are thoroughly decent people.
Greetings, Dive,
Thanks for starting the thread. It's a gigantic topic, we won't get through it all in one thread. I take you to be a genuine inquirer after spiritual gnosis, that you are genuinely consternated by some of the replies you get from some alleged Christians here (as am I), and I think you would greatly benefit from doing some historical research into ho ...[text shortened]...
As I said, this is a huge field of discussion, too much to cover in one thread.
Cheers,
moon
But I’m way to independently minded and only came to profess a faith later in life and was never comfortable with some of the stuff taught at home and in church. In particularly I found church life uncomfortable at best, repellant at worst.
I’ve never believed in “eternal suffering”; it’s an amoral incoherent nonsense and I’m honestly astonished that anyone believes it these days. Over the last 10 - 15 years I’ve come to realise that I just don’t believe most of the stuff which was preached in church or even the some of the core accepted memes (no insult intended) of supposed Christian dogma. I just don’t believe it, it’s as simple as that.
“Cherry picker” heretic” “apostate” I’ve been called in here by these people who want to do what … change my mind? Really…by saying that!?
Questions I asked in here over the years:
- where is the tree of life now?
- where did Jesus go when he ascended?
- why is Jesus said to be in hell personally overseeing the burning alive of billions of people?
- what did God mean when he said “I will write my law on their hearts”?
- “all scripture is good for teaching” well the bible didn’t exist when that was said and written!
- why do the big churches have a huge hierarchy?
- why is there so much money in corporate Christianity?
- why was it mandatory to stone adulterers in the OT but Jesus prevented it in the NT
- if the eternal punishment is so severe why doesn’t God make believing in him more accessible, more believable?
- numerically speaking why was Jesus sacrifice such an utter failure “straight is the gate, narrow the way…and only a FEW will find it” - what kind of sadism it that!?
I’ve asked myself hundreds of times “do I still faith” and absolutely yes I do. But I look and I see that’s wrong and that’s wrong and that’s wrong and that’s wrong…etc.
So the bible simply cannot be inerrant. It can’t be.
And therefore all bets are off when it comes to these sometimes horrible, sometimes ridiculous, sometimes contradictory dogmas. And yes you’re correct, there was no Bible in Jesus time. It’s a man made thing. But I do feel that it is a good platform for god to speak to people.
But I’ll be called a “liar” and all manner of horrible insults for saying this.
@divegeester
Rule no. one when reading the Bible: it does not say what happened; it says what a cabal of Roman bishops in the 4th c. wanted people to believe.
Rule no. two: nothing in the NT indicates that Jesus thought of himself as founding a new religion separate from Judaism. When he said “I am come not to break the law, but to fulfill it,” and “not one jot of the law shall pass away…” the law he meant was the Torah, the Mosaic law. This had already been written down; nothing in the NT indicates that Jesus thought his teachings were to be carried on in written form, much less in another whole religion at odds with Judaism.
@moonbus saidWhy are you introducing “rules”… Are you trying to start a new religion? 😄
@divegeester
Rule no. one when reading the Bible: it does not say what happened; it says what a cabal of Roman bishops in the 4th c. wanted people to believe.
Rule no. two: nothing in the NT indicates that Jesus thought of himself as founding a new religion separate from Judaism. When he said “I am come not to break the law, but to fulfill it,” and “not one jot of the l ...[text shortened]... ngs were to be carried on in written form, much less in another whole religion at odds with Judaism.
@moonbus
Let's take some verses from John, then I will ask my question.
All these quotes are from the KJV.
1. John 2:22 -- "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."
2. John 7:38 -- "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."
3. John 7:42 -- "Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?"
4. John 10:35 -- "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;"
5. John 13:18 -- "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me."
6. John 17:12 -- "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."
7. John 19:24 -- "They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did."
8. John 19:28 -- "After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst."
9. John 19:36 -- "For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken."
10. John 19:37 --"And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced."
11. John 20:9 -- "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead."
Now this is just from John, but many books of the Bible speak of "scripture". A simple search will show you that, in the New Testament alone, there are 31 references to "scripture". This shows there was some common text being referred to (probably Old Testament writings, such as Isaiah), as these references are made as if everyone knew the scriptures being referenced. Perhaps John and other gospel writers meant "scripture" to mean "law", as some quotes feature the word "scripture" where other similar quotes (as well as Jesus himself) say "law".
Now my question:
To what writings are these mentions of "scripture" referencing?
Surely the mentions of "scripture", by Jesus and others, as if people should know the reference, were speaking of some common source for Jewish dogma. What was this source?