Originally posted by rwingettScience is very good and can tell us many many things.
In the second post in this thread, Jaywill said:
My attitude is that if there is a descrepency between what science says and what the Bible says, my leaning is toward the Bible. God, I believe and trust, knows all the facts. But science, wonderful as it is, is man's invention.
My post is directly relevant to that point. Jaywill claims science i ou may find it in the bible, but if you want knowledge, science holds all the trump cards.
I am not against science. I did say that I trust that the Bible is God's revelation.
There is truth which can only be known by revelation from God. So the Bible can go beyond what science can tell us, although science is very useful.
Of course God moved with man to write the Bible. Matthew has his flavor. Mark has his. Luke has another flavor. And the books do reflect the personalities of the authors.
But Daniel could not have known the things about the future to his age without the revelation of God. Micah could not have prophesied far into the future without God confering on him the knowledge.
Isaiah could not have predicted what he did without divine revelation.
Yes the Bible did not float down from the clouds with a golden glow. It appears written by dusty human beings. And we know that these dusty human beings were not perfect.
But they were inspired. And God "breathed" His words into their writing to produce a comminication from God to man over a period of 1600 years.
Do you really think some first century fishermen imagined and conspired to create a character named Jesus and put wise words into his mouth?
What did it get them? Fame and fortune? They all died by executions. Perhaps John didn't.
What other writing takes as many words to explain these matters in a few chapters (I mean all of these themes in ONE book):
1. The origin of the unverse
2. The purpose of man's existence on the earth
3. The origin of the animals
4. The first marriage
5. The reason for the existence of hard work and death
6. The first murder
7. The origin of human government
8. The origin of agriculture
9. The origin of industry
10, The origin of musical performance
11. The origin of human languages
12. The directional spread of early mankind over the face of the earth
What other book on the earth covers these themes all within the first 6,000 or so words of a document?
I think we are dealing with God using man to write down His revelation to man.
Maybe you should open up a thread dedicated to debating the process of canonization and inspiration.
Originally posted by jaywillThen this is an utterly meaningless conversation that you're having altogether! If you accept as
If a Christian thinks the Gospel of Thomas is canonical I would not say he or she is not my brother in the Lord because of that reason.
Does that answer your question?
Christian those people who reject parts of the historical Bible and those who accept non-traditional
parts, then the corpus from which a 'Christian' draws is a moving target. If a Messianic Jew
accepted the Talmud as Scripture, infallible and Divinely Inspired, and pointed to it to draw conclusions,
what have you to say to that? What about the Christian who thinks the Koran is inspired? What
about the Christian that thinks that there some Revelation (with a capital 'R'😉 in so-called secular
texts like the writings of St Augustine or St Thomas or Pope Benedict XVI or Raymond Brown or
Bishop John Shelby Spong, &c.?
If you are going to be studying all of Revelation, how can you exclude even a science textbook,
for it certainly reveals things, and many of us think that it Reveals things, too.
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywillWhat are these supposed truths that can only be known by revelation from god? Please enumerate them. And if science is allegedly unable to access them, what makes you think the bible can do any better?
Science is very good and can tell us many many things.
I am not against science. I did say that I trust that the Bible is God's revelation.
There is truth which can only be known by revelation from God. So the Bible can go beyond what science can tell us, although science is very useful.
Of course God moved with man to write the Bible. Matthew h ...[text shortened]... should open up a thread dedicated to debating the process of canonization and inspiration.
I have no interest in your so-called prophecy. The prophetic verses are largely vague, and are ambiguous enough to allow an excessive flexibility of interpretation, and many were simply written after the events they claim to predict. It's simply a case of you seeing what you want to see.
Jesus likely never said half the things that are attributed to him by the bible. Many of them are pure fabrications. But one thing is certain - chritianity, as it exists today, bears almost no resemblance to what Jesus had in mind. Modern christianity owes more to Paul than it does to Jesus. Modern research into the hypothetical "Q gospel" has attempted to pare away the later fabrications and get back to what Jesus might have originally said. But of course the project is hotly contested.
The Koran (for example) explains all those things without too much greater length. But I fail to see how the brevity of the bible could be counted as a point in its favor. Truth isn't determined by the shortest word count. And I'm sure it's length owes more to the judicious editing of the early church fathers than it does to divine guidance.
Originally posted by rwingettSo are you saying here that because there was much debate over what goes in the Bible, and that there are more than one possible outcomes, that the whole thing must be discarded?
In the second post in this thread, Jaywill said:
My attitude is that if there is a descrepency between what science says and what the Bible says, my leaning is toward the Bible. God, I believe and trust, knows all the facts. But science, wonderful as it is, is man's invention.
My post is directly relevant to that point. Jaywill claims science i ou may find it in the bible, but if you want knowledge, science holds all the trump cards.
What are these supposed truths that can only be known by revelation from god? Please enumerate them. And if science is allegedly unable to access them, what makes you think the bible can do any better?
Science cannot tell us WHY we are here as human beings on this earth.
And God said Let US make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fishj of the sea and over the birds of heaven and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.
And God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created them; male and female He created them.
And God blessed them; and God said to them, Be fruitful and multply ... etc" (Genesis 1:26-28)
This is God's revelation as to WHY He created man. Man was created so man might represent God by being in God's image. Man was created so that man might represent dominion for God over God's creation.
IMAGE and DOMINION Image of God - Dominion for God - this is why Adam's race was created.
I don't think science could tell us these things. Science could tell us about how the stomach works and how the blood stream flows. Science could tell us many things that are NOT in the revelation of the Bible. But science cannot tell us the purpose for which God created man - to be in the image of God and to have the dominion for God.
Secondly, and even more importantly - science could not tell us what has gone wrong. Science can tell us that something seems wrong and is wrong. But science could not tell us why as far as the spiritual reasons for these things.
I have no interest in your so-called prophecy. The prophetic verses are largely vague, and are ambiguous enough to allow an excessive flexibility of interpretation, and many were simply written after the events they claim to predict. It's simply a case of you seeing what you want to see.
I know you have no interest in prophecy. I did not suddenly have interest in a lot of prophecy either all at one time.
But as I acted on some small amount of truth about myself and God the little truth that I did accept led to more truth.
First I accepted the Holy Spirit's truth about my personal conduct and sins of transgression against God and man. After repenting for these then little my little over the process of time I DID become more interested.
Seeing the Spirit of God transform me from within made me open to explore more of what was said in the Bible. But at first I had no interest in prophecy either.
You see a little light will lead to more light. A little truth will lead to more truth. The path of the righteous is like the dawning of the day growing brighter and brighter.
Jesus likely never said half the things that are attributed to him by the bible. Many of them are pure fabrications.
Could you go through the fifth chapter of Matthew's gospel and specify which verses are fabrications and which are genuine sayings of Jesus?
There are 48 verses in that chapter. Just give us the numbers from 1 to 48. Put a J besides the ones you know are authentic sayings of Jesus. Put a F beside the ones you know are fabrications.
I want to see if you have that information. And I also want to see how your catagories effect my overall faith in Christ and the gospel.
But one thing is certain - chritianity, as it exists today, bears almost no resemblance to what Jesus had in mind.
With this we have much agreement. You and I agree on a large part about this.
My reaction to this however is different from your reaction perhaps. I do not for that reason say Jesus didn't say this or that.
I seek out those who do represent what Christ taught. Even if they are a minority they are not nonexistent you know. You just don't hear about it in the mass media. What do they care. They are more interested in what sells - like Britteny Spears or Nicole Smith.
Are you expecting the New York Times to headline that more orthodox disciples of Jesus have been found? Seek and you will find. I found disciples who express the mind of Christ. At least they are entering into the experience.
We all didn't throw up our hands and decide it is no use. None of the twelve disciples was without his faults. They didn't each quit because they were not instantaneosly perfect in one moment.
There are so many people who lose chess games - why do you even BOTHER to learn to play chess anyway?
God always has had a testimony reserved for Himself on the earth. Are you afraid that if you become a believer in Christ you will be a failure?
The whole nation of Israel failed to enter into the land of Canaan except for Joshua and Caleb. That generation died in the desert. But the younger generation plus Joshua and Caleb entered into the promise land.
The church of Christ also is victorious and glorious in spite of Chrisytianity's failures. The church is glorious and I am overjoyed to be a part of her. We feel glorious. We feel victorious in Christ.
Modern christianity owes more to Paul than it does to Jesus. Modern research into the hypothetical "Q gospel" has attempted to pare away the later fabrications and get back to what Jesus might have originally said. But of course the project is hotly contested.
You've been eating too much skeptical stuff. Forget about Q gospel.
Lay hold of some small portion of the truth of the New Testament and embrace it. Let the Spirit expand and spread His enfluence from that small part.
There may be some small area where God is telling you to deny yourself and trust in the Lord Jesus. IF you would just follow Him in that small area you would see your confidence in His reality grow.
Why refuse to follow Jesus because so many excuses. Does the Q Gospel prevent you from asking God to forgive you for the way you speak to your spouse or for the way you have not forgiven someone in the past?
If you obey the Spirit of God in some small area of your personal life you will see light and truth grow and grow.
What is this nonsense " I will not confess to the Father that I am a sinner in need of forgiveness because afterall there is the Q gospel and the Documentary Hypothesis and the gospel of Thomas. All these things prevent me from saying - Lord Jesus have mercy on me a sinner."
The Koran (for example) explains all those things without too much greater length. But I fail to see how the brevity of the bible could be counted as a point in its favor. Truth isn't determined by the shortest word count. And I'm sure it's length owes more to the judicious editing of the early church fathers than it does to divine guidance.
No it doesn't.
What is this? "Oh there's the Bible and there's this Koran over here. So I won't ask God to cleanse me of my sins."
What separates you from the rich and solid experience of God is your sins. It is not the existence of the Q gospel or the Koran. You are too proud to admit that you need Jesus to be your Savior. So you remain unregenerated and in the dark.
You're wasteing precious time in which the Holy Spirit could be transforming you into the image of Christ in preparation for the age to come. And you are making excuses.
If you can't take in all prophecy just take in what the Holy Spirit is leading you to take in at this time. The truth will grow in you in the future if you are faithful to the light He gives you today.
It is your sins which are cutting you off from realizing the reality of Christ. It is nothing so interesting as Q gospel and redaction criticism of the New Testament. The obstacle is in your unconfessed and unforgiven sins. That is where the insulation is. That is where the obstacle is to substantiating that God is real and that the Bible is His Word.
I dare you to spend time alone with Jesus confessing one by one your known sins and asking Him that His precious blood would wash you. This would be time well spent and you would come away knowing that God is real.
Originally posted by Big MacNo, the whole thing needn't be discarded. It can still be used as a source of fable (in the best sense of the word) if you wish, or of poetry, or of literature. But as a source of "truth" it should be viewed with the utmost skepticism. And where the bible and science are at loggerheads, the bible should always give way to science. If this requires religious folk to occasionally modify their religious interpretations, that is a task they should not shy away from.
So are you saying here that because there was much debate over what goes in the Bible, and that there are more than one possible outcomes, that the whole thing must be discarded?
Originally posted by jaywill
But Daniel could not have known the things about the future to his age without the revelation of God.
I looked at Daniel's famous prophecies when whodey brought them up and they are vague beyond measure!
They don't 'predict' anything, just fantastical stuff about fire and towers and iron. One has to 'interpret'
them excessively broadly in order to give them even the slightest hint of predictive truth.
Micah could not have prophesied far into the future without God confering on him the knowledge.
What prophecies are we identifying here?
Isaiah could not have predicted what he did without divine revelation.
Much of 'Isaiah's' predictions are believed to have been penned after the events took place in a
pseudonymous hand. There are a minimum of three easily defined layers spanning a hundred years
in the book of Isaiah, and some identify six layers.
Do you really think some first century fishermen imagined and conspired to create a character named Jesus and put wise words into his mouth?
No.
What other writing takes as many words to explain these matters in a few chapters (I mean all of these themes in ONE book)...
Well, once again, you're pretended that Genesis (e.g.) is 'one book' when it is the compilation of
many disparate unrelated texts. Chapters 1 and 2, for example, are separated by a few hundred
years in their creation.
But, to answer your question, let's see: The Theogony, Enuma Elish, The Prose Edda... and so on.
Do you seriously think that the proto-Jews were the only people who tried to explain the origins and
purpose of humankind and the only ones who gave aetiological explanations for the happenings around
them?
Nemesio
Originally posted by jaywillIf science cannot answer the question "why we are here as human beings on this earth", it may be because there is no answer to the question. It's quite possible that there is no reason why we're here at all. Maybe it just occurred through seemingly random processes. But if there is an answer to the question that science is unable to provide, what makes you think the religious community can answer the question any better? Christianity does provide an answer, but it does not mean it is the right answer. I dispute the implication that whatever questions science seemingly cannot answer automatically belong to the theologians. I see no reason to assume that they can answer any questions at all, and while they do toss up many different answers to many questions, I see no reason to assume that any of them are right.
What are these supposed truths that can only be known by revelation from god? Please enumerate them. And if science is allegedly unable to access them, what makes you think the bible can do any better?
Science cannot tell us WHY we are here as human beings on this earth.
And God said Let US make man in Our image, according to O time well spent and you would come away knowing that God is real.
For me to go through the bible and pick out which passages are authentic and which are not would be an exercise in futility. As I indicated, there is much disagreement on this matter. But we do have some specific examples, such a the story of the adulteress, from the Gospel of John, which does not appear in our earliest copies of that gospel. It appears to be the case that it was a later addition*. I really think you ought to investigate the Q document in a little more detail. I mean, after all, If Jesus really said something other than what you've been told, wouldn't it be your duty to find out what you could about it?
The rest of your post seems to be not so much an argument as an exercise in proselytization. I will not waste my time with it.
*A fuller account of the textual history of this passage can be read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6#Textual_history
And as always, I recommend Bart Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, as an excellent introduction into the discipline of biblical textual criticism.
If science cannot answer the question "why we are here as human beings on this earth", it may be because there is no answer to the question.
It sounds like guesswork. Maybe there's an answer. Maybe there's not.
Well I think man is the center of all life on this earth. And Jesus is the center of man.
The prevailing opinion of science is that humans are an accident and it is more likely that cock roaches are better suited to survive us. Run with that if you wish.
I think Christ is what God meant by human being.
It's quite possible that there is no reason why we're here at all.
Is it possible that unless God told us we wouldn't have a clue?
Maybe it just occurred through seemingly random processes.
Sure. A random process that brought slime to be a thinking brain. Why not? All you need is a lot of time - trillions and trillions eons. Its bound to happen.
But if there is an answer to the question that science is unable to provide, what makes you think the religious community can answer the question any better?
Maybe God has spoken but you just don't want to listen. Is that a possiblility?
Maybe you deeply distrust that God could care or could speak. Perhaps you count God as the enemy.
Christianity does provide an answer, but it does not mean it is the right answer. I dispute the implication that whatever questions science seemingly cannot answer automatically belong to the theologians. I see no reason to assume that they can answer any questions at all, and while they do toss up many different answers to many questions, I see no reason to assume that any of them are right.
I don't know ANITY. I do know Christ.
I do know what were the obstacles which prevented me from knowing Christ. And I know how to deal with the obstacles.
I learned how to deal with the obstacles that stand in the way of fellowship with the Father.
Originally posted by jaywillIf you come up with an actual argument, be sure to let me know.
[b]If science cannot answer the question "why we are here as human beings on this earth", it may be because there is no answer to the question.
It sounds like guesswork. Maybe there's an answer. Maybe there's not.
Well I think man is the center of all life on this earth. And Jesus is the center of man.
The prevailing opinion of scien ...[text shortened]... ned how to deal with the obstacles that stand in the way of fellowship with the Father.[/b]
Originally posted by rwingettWhich one?
Read the Ehrman book. Maybe he addresses those passages. If I cared enough I could check it myself, but I don't.
EDIT: Never mind. I see it now! I read a different one, and actually taught a class that was linked with his course some years ago. He's a fantastic lecturer.
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdI've been a fan of his for a while now. I've read a few of his books. Very informative stuff. You see him here and there on the History Channel, The Daily Show, and the Colbert Report as well. Everyone who has an interest in christianity should read a few of his books.
Which one?
EDIT: Never mind. I see it now! I read a different one, and actually taught a class that was linked with his course some years ago. He's a fantastic lecturer.
Edit: Plus I have an audio series of some of his lectures. Also very good.