I am not sure I am understanding the whole premise here.
I live with a freakishly talented musician. He has literally taught himself to play any instrument he has ever picked up . . . . starting with the touch-tone phone at the age of 4. One day he sat down and wrote the most beautiful piece of music I have heard in a long time. It took him a few hours to write it, record all the parts, and mix them together for a stunning result.
Fascinated, I asked him how he did this . . .
He simply said he was inspired. It was still him writing the notes and it was his talent. .. . but, the inspiration for that music came from somewhere. Probably a poor analogy, but we do have some kind of understanding about what it means to be inspired by something. It is not an unheard of concept. It should almost be more clear to those with artistic leaning. Musicians, artists, creative people. Although, inspiration is not limited.
Scripture writing, being an inspired act, should not be a confusing idea? One may choose to not believe that declaration of inspiration within these ancient documents, (more than one set of scripture declares this) but the notion that . . . yes, it was Paul's words, doesn't serve to disprove the idea of them being inspired by God.
Holy men. . . a specific kind of person . . . spoke their own words. . . in their own style. . . in their own language . . . with their own understanding . . . inspired, or moved by the Holy Spirit. I guess it helps to understand the concept of holiness and how the Holy Spirit moves within the life of a Christian. If that is not something one does understand. . . it is fairly easy to ask a Christian to explain it. . . or even allow the scriptures themselves to enlighten us to the concept. They do that when we are not trying to tell them what they are saying, but let them tell us. I think we missed that in TWI.
Another bad analogy. . . Dear Abby can write a piece of advice addressing a particular problem or issue. Does that mean the advice is only relevant to the person to whom it is particularly addressed? Can others accept the advice and use it in their own situation? What Paul wrote to particular church, facing specific issues, can be relevant to churches today. We can take those corrected doctrines and apply them within our own church and life. Especially if we believe the words written by Paul, his own words. . . are inspired by the Holy Spirit.
To me, what is more illuminating is that these same issues still arise in churches.
The whole concept of written language as a form of communication. . . . it is a very human thing. Christians believe God to be very engaged in the events of human history. That is the whole premise of Christian scripture.
Before the advent of television, radio, internet and email. . . . which we as a culture can relate to . . . letter writing was an art form . . . a duty. . . how we related to others important information. Books, not an antiquated or confusing concept. Taking relevant information presented at one time in letter form . . . . concerning a particular subject and putting it together in a book with other information about the same subject matter is not so far fetched.
The canon had a purpose and these doctrines and concepts were already understood. The understanding of an Apostle's purpose and calling were known. One doesn't have to accept the premise, but it doesn't mean there wasn't specific guidelines or reasons for what was accepted. The knowledge of false apostles and false letters being circulated is addressed in scripture. Thessalonians speaks to false letters . . . . other scripture addresses false teachers. . . .other scripture. . . . false doctrine.
A right and wrong way to understand certain things within the faith. What is so odd about that?
This specific collection makes claims about itself. It is great to evaluate its history. . . . but, limiting oneself to a particular method is like using just part of a recipe. At some point, we need to evaluate the text itself for its claims. It addresses the genesis of life, the human condition, and a specific historic figure who made claims relevant to all of mankind.
That is what we have . . . no matter who said it. . . wrote it down. . . copied it. . . or put it in book form. The Shakespeare on your shelf may have a few words wrong . . . a few passages tweaked, but the story line we can have some confidence in. . . .
Sometimes things get silly with people, and they argue. So at the heart of this is whether or not the Bible is God's Word, or whether it simply contains God's words. Now then,... which parts do we start crossing out? I am reminded of the Movie - Galaxy Quest and the references to the "Historical Record". Pretty funny stuff!
Maybe the whole Bible was just a TV show and the writers were really really slow at writing the episodes.
Maybe, in spite of all that was wrong with the Way, man's basic spriitual problem really is..... ,,,eh?
One question for Geisha regarding her statement: "This specific collection makes claims about itself."
My question: Where is the statement?
I guess the claims(plural) depend on where you are reading really? No? Perhaps I should have written "within" itself again? Poor choice of a word at 4:15 AM?
Funny, I remember certain phrases I would watch for others to use while in TWI. My opportunity to get in there and "correct" according to TWI theology. It was so superficial. It didn't really matter what else they were saying. . . . I just waited for the gotcha phrase. I never engaged people in genuine conversation. . . . I always had those few formulaic questions ready and waiting. Endless arguments over words.
But, then again, I was rather "fundamentalist" in my approach, had my own agenda, and was trained in a cult.
That being said . . . . . the claims it makes within itself . . . vary.
Some things claim to be an orderly account. . . . narrative. . . some are written in specific genres . . . like histories or the apocalyptic genre of the day . . . . . some are didactic. Some claims are to being letters written to specific churches . . . they proclaim purposes. . . given to correct certain problems that crept into the church by men just like VP with their own agenda and gospel.
If we are looking for verses . . . happy to have that doctrinal discussion . . . maybe. . . in the appropriate forum.
You are absolutely correct when you say those letters are not written to you. They were written for people who already believed in the Lord by hearing the gospel message. Faith comes by hearing the message .. . . the text . . . having it speak to your heart as true. . . . Many, never even saw it in written form. The letters are not really evangelical tools.
In TWI we believed in the book to nearly the exclusion of all else including the message. If one's faith in the book is rocked .. . the rest collapses. . . . makes perfect sense.
Gosh, I just wondered where in the Bible the claim was that referred to the whole Bible, since the Bible wasn't put together until LONG after any of those documents were written. Anyway, no big deal. Too many canons can be called the Bible anyway, which complicates the matter further.
Guess as an unbeliever in the statement that the Bible is God's Word, I'll step out of this thread. I ain't no scholar or theologian...I just ask too many silly questions.
Gosh, I just wondered where in the Bible the claim was that referred to the whole Bible, since the Bible wasn't put together until LONG after any of those documents were written. Anyway, no big deal. Too many canons can be called the Bible anyway, which complicates the matter further.
Guess as an unbeliever in the statement that the Bible is God's Word, I'll step out of this thread. I ain't no scholar or theologian...I just ask too many silly questions.
Which I believe you have mentioned before . .. no? So, I simply corrected my wording and answered your question. Should not be a problem. I thought it was clear enough in the context, but maybe not.
I am sorry that is all you took or wanted to discuss from my lengthy post.
Your other thread actually inspired me to read Inerrancy by Norm Geisler. I have had it hanging around for awhile. It is a good book and addresses many of your questions. You might enjoy it.
Don't step out . . . I will. . . this is your kind of topic . . . Enjoy!!
Just so you know, you give me plenty to think over and I do appreciate the time you take in your posts. Your many descriptions of the different documents in the Bible and what they say of themselves were lovely. And they were just that: different documents. My question was along a different line, though. To me, since each description or claim or statement you gave is from or about a particular book in the Bible (a stand-alone piece of writing) none of them is referring to the Bible as a whole. We both know this and most readers here do, too, that since the Bible was assembled years later than the time when those passages were written, how in the world could any of those passages refer to the final product called the Bible? It didn’t exist when they were written. That was what I was questioning.
My question was about trying to understand how, as many people do, using one description in one gospel or epistle or Old Testament book could be a statement about the whole Bible? It seems impossible to me. For instance, VP and others interpret such statements as John 17:17 as referring to the Bible, but that verse in fact is from a prayer Jesus was saying out loud to God, and included the phrase: “Thy word is truth.” Jesus did not say (and I know this is silly but bear with me) these books in the Bible are “truth” because obviously there was no Bible yet and (we both know this, too) the men who decided which documents to put in it were not in agreement for a long time. This info is readily available, even on Wikipedia (for anyone reading this who wants more info).
Anyhow, to avoid pounding this into the ground (or repeating myself as was mentioned I do) I’ll just sign off by saying my interest is in understanding each document in the Bible separately, on its own terms, and how the men who wrote them came to do it. Geisha, I think that’s where our mix up in communication often stems from...maybe not. No hard feelings...
If Paul had been a "loose cannon" and a womanizer he would have simply been rejected and run out of town on a rail.
Non sequitur.
Any number of Joseph Smiths and VP Wierwilles have left their mark on religious history while being loose cannons and womanizers. And they were not necessarily run out of town on a rail.
Just so you know, you give me plenty to think over and I do appreciate the time you take in your posts. Your many descriptions of the different documents in the Bible and what they say of themselves were lovely. And they were just that: different documents. My question was along a different line, though. To me, since each description or claim or statement you gave is from or about a particular book in the Bible (a stand-alone piece of writing) none of them is referring to the Bible as a whole. We both know this and most readers here do, too, that since the Bible was assembled years later than the time when those passages were written, how in the world could any of those passages refer to the final product called the Bible? It didn’t exist when they were written. That was what I was questioning.
My question was about trying to understand how, as many people do, using one description in one gospel or epistle or Old Testament book could be a statement about the whole Bible? It seems impossible to me. For instance, VP and others interpret such statements as John 17:17 as referring to the Bible, but that verse in fact is from a prayer Jesus was saying out loud to God, and included the phrase: “Thy word is truth.” Jesus did not say (and I know this is silly but bear with me) these books in the Bible are “truth” because obviously there was no Bible yet and (we both know this, too) the men who decided which documents to put in it were not in agreement for a long time. This info is readily available, even on Wikipedia (for anyone reading this who wants more info).
Anyhow, to avoid pounding this into the ground (or repeating myself as was mentioned I do) I’ll just sign off by saying my interest is in understanding each document in the Bible separately, on its own terms, and how the men who wrote them came to do it. Geisha, I think that’s where our mix up in communication often stems from...maybe not. No hard feelings...
Cheers!
It is interesting to note how most modern Christians unquestionably accept the canonization of scripture which was done by a Roman pope well after the death of the apostles. That very well may be a flawed major premise in VPW's whole approach. The OT seems to be relatively well packaged with the "jots and tittles". The NT, not so much - harmony of the gospels has seen plenty of struggles, even if the 4 viewpoints approach is valid. The different letters, extrapolating to THE answer to EVERYTHING FOR ALL time may be a leap - they were personal to an individual or a church. Dispensationalism, or administrations - TWI's teachings on the tithe and debt have so many logical disparities that all the distinctions taught there may not be as distinct as you would think - people like things fitting into nice little buckets.
Can I still believe "holy men of God wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost"? Yes. I think so. Inspiration is the basis for all good writing. What about contradictions? Well, people in and of themselves are inherent contradictions, so that's no surprise.
Jesus Himself read from the scrolls. He affirmed them and their authority. . . even saying at one point they were being fulfilled right there before their eyes. The Apostles held the same reverence that Jesus did . . . for the written word. It was no light issue. These men, with the exception of John, died for the purpose of being a witness to these things.
That makes them worth more than a cursory logic when denying them . . . IMO.
If the originals were not perfect . . . then no real error has crept in. There was nothing true or right to corrupt in the first place. No perfect originals. . . . no error. Case closed.
OR
Something original is going to be perfect for what it is. . . . being the first thing done from which copies are made. But, what do we mean by perfect? From where I sit. . . language and man's ability to communicate through language is not perfect. Look at these forums. . . and most of us have an education which would rival that of a fisherman. So, perfect grammar, perfect precise and exact wording, perfect hidden meaning? No. That is a form of gnostic perception of scripture and in part why Gnostics are so drawn to Paul's epistles. It is what we in TWI were searching for from the scriptures. Men wrote these books and letters.
Why do the scriptures have authority OVER THE CHURCH? Because they are God breathed? I guess so. . .but what does that even mean? What does inspired by God even mean? We are not speaking about the Koran. But, if you listen to TWI one would think we were. It is the Koran that Muslim's claim is the EXACT representation of God. Scripture. . . according to Paul is inspired by God. Written by men. About something for a purpose. It is meant to be the revelation and definitive witness to Jesus Christ as Lord. The rule of faith and of life.
Or is it because some guys got together and decided it had authority?
Letters circulated from the get go and it was common practice for some of them to be read in the different churches. That instruction is still with us today. 1st Thess. 5:27 Not all the letters had the same authority. Some were Apostolic in nature. The Apostles were known as they also circulated. Copies circulated among the churches from early on. They were authoritative depending on who wrote them about what. . . . false letters circulated too. Paul addresses this in his letter to the Thessalonians. Prior to AD 100 Paul's letters had already been collected and published. The Pauline Corpus. Paul's word was affirmed by Peter. If he was a con man, Peter would not have affirmed Paul's word.
The gospels were also collected and circulated. Outside their immediate area they were compared and contrasted. . . the result was that people started picking the gospel they liked the most. I believe Acts and 1 Peter and one of the Johns along with Revelation was also added early on. Different things were added in different places but, some not in our canon today. They did not have the Apostolic validity but, were still good writings. We can still read them. The Didache for example. I love reading that.
Coming from what we did, TWI, I would think it would be MORE clear to us than almost anyone else about the need that the church had to establish the validity of the Apostolic writings. . . . given the rise of pick and choose a book Gnostics with their varied theologies which stood diametrically opposed to the church. And why didn't we revere the gospels as we did the Pauline epistles in TWI. Why were they down played and nearly dismissed the same way they were by some groups early on?
Although the 21 book canon by 200AD or the canon we have today was debated and books challenged. . . that should give us more confidence. . . not less. . . that we have a good bible. That it was accepted for the most part as having authority over the church is phenomenal. It was not a contrived result. It has been honored ever since. . . despite divisions.
Oral tradition, tested witnesses, daily faith. . . . life/death. . . .people STILL dying for this truth . . . heady factors IMO.
You can't get ten of us on here to agree to the same thing for more than 5 minutes. Never mind adhere to it for 20 minutes. So far, the bible has buried all its pall bearers. I think the scriptures mention something about that too.
But, the authority of scripture itself was not what the canon was seeking to prove was it?
The understanding of sacred scripture was already a heritage.. Our attitude toward scripture. . . . . as Christians, comes from Jesus attitude. He identified Himself with that authority. He confirmed this to His disciples. . . no? He claimed to be the Messiah. . . the fulfillment of scripture. If the words given to Moses were revered. . . kept. . . handed down. . . preserved. . . . how much more important would it be that those of the fulfillment of these prophecies be recorded?
Still, scripture is suppose to be inspired by God, so it is God's ballgame I guess. The people who debated and worked the canon didn't authorize the writing of scripture. . . the OT prophet's didn't raise themselves up for lives of misery. The Apostles who were martyred . . . probably not their life long ambition. There is a spiritual element. Probably best not to discount that when evaluating the scriptures. They testify of this. . . so consider it at least. God selects the time, the people, and the human element if the scriptures are to be believed.
"All scripture is God breathed and----- holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
How do you know?
It says so in "The Word".
Who made the statement?
Paul.
How do you know he was right?
It says so in "The Word"
Yes indeed Waysider, it is a bit of tail-chasing.
Here's another one, just to demonstrate the silliness.
If the Bible says that Paul said, "XYZ" Does that mean that God said it? or just Paul. There's a mathematical principle that could be applied to prove Paul is God kicking around in the back of my head, but as I said, this was silliness.
I will go you one better Waysider, the scriptures do not prove the existence of God. . . . they don't even defend it. . . they simply declare it.
Declarative statements. . . you never use them in contrast to a question or a command?
A statement that something is. . . just that. . . what it is.
You don't have to accept the answers in scripture as true, but they are provided for you.
Whether you are responsible to the God declared in scripture for your acceptance is a question we all answer for ourselves. That might even be the whole point to the exercise of life. Scripture declares it is. . . . . it declares the reasons for this life.
People don't accept the answers because they compel belief and they do not violate one's free-will decision. The message speaks to the heart.
Oddly, the message does call people to decision by its declarative nature. Jesus did not go around begging people to believe in God. . . He declared Him.
However, this thread is eerily reminiscent of how we approached scripture in TWI. Always with something to prove.
I would consider the comparison more cogent had Wierwille been beaten, whipped, stoned, and imprisoned, and then continued to preach his beliefs. Other than having some bad press, he didn't really suffer for his convictions.
George
I understand what you are saying here..
but who other than Paul's claims exist that these conditions were true to begin with?
Its just a question..
five times I was beat forty stripes save one..
thrice with rods..
acts records the records with Barnabas and Saul..
the earthquake..
the Jailor saved with his house..
If it were all true, surely it is noble and all..
reminds me of my favorite movie..
"tell me, were you ever tortured?"
"well yes.."
"you probably know, those fellows are going to give me a pretty good working over.."
how does anybody ever stand up to torture..
"well, Jack, nobody does.. "
In the end.. they just wanted to have some kind of "fun"..
I dunno.. I could keep on saying.. maybe you don't want to hear..
"He sacrificed his very own eye for his keeeds. And, when that wasn't enough, he turned his face to the wall and, with a broken heart and shattered liver, was heard to say, 'I wish I was a man. I know I could have been.'"
Well, it's one thing to say you accept something "on faith".
I'm down with that.
We all do that with one thing or another in our lives.
But, using circular logic to "explain away" something that has been taken "on faith" is a horse of a completely different color.
Well, I do think you can come to a decision weighing the evidence, like CS Lewis, Lee Strobel, or the most interesting Anthony Flew . . . a hardcore atheist and a brilliant mind. These guys have really interesting stories. Ravi Zacharias too. Ultimately it is a decision. How we examine the evidence and relate to it varies.
How we process information really matters.
How is it circular logic? Paul, as an Apostle of Jesus Christ as he claims, making a declarative statement within scripture. There is a church now. There was a church in the 1st century. We have these letters written by Paul to the early churches. In one of the letters Paul makes a definitive statement. . . . scripture is. . . yada yada. I have access to all kinds of things called scripture. I can read the bible, the Koran. . . anything I want . . . look at human history, relate to God's movement within it. . . see God within the creation. . . and I can evaluate that statement and decide whether I believe it or don't believe it.
I am not compelled to believe it just because it is IN the bible.
If I believed it because it IS scripture. . . . you might have a case. . . . but, if I believe it to be a true declarative statement by evaluating it.. . . . no.
Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Well, that makes fulfilled prophecy more clear. . . . and how we got a story full of continuity and congruence over 3 continents, 3 languages, 1500 years, 66 books, and 40 authors from all walks of life telling one story about one particular man to come . . . having arrived. . . did what He did and left. .. promising to return. That explanation . . . the inspired thingy rings a bell with me.
But, you have to assume people simply believe it because it is scripture. How do you know this? Oh, oops. . . well, perhaps many of us did that in TWI. . . well, okay that is a given. But, we were in a cult.
Any number of Joseph Smiths and VP Wierwilles have left their mark on religious history while being loose cannons and womanizers. And they were not necessarily run out of town on a rail.
I'm not saying Paul would not have garnered a following if he had been a Wierwille, Smith, etc. My point is that the mainstream church would not have embraced his writings had his conduct been as such. The church in Jerusalem along with its leadership as well as the churches in Rome, Antioch and what was then considered Asia all recognized and accepted Paul's leadership. If he had been a Wierwille, Smith etc., he would have been branded a false teacher by those churches. It was not as if those churches had not pointed out other false teachers and warned their fellow Christians about them. I'm suggesting as evidence of his authenticity the way he was accepted by his peers whom we know were true believers. That is, the Apostles at Jerusalem along with James and Barnabus. "Run out of town on a rail" is probably a bad choice of metaphor but I used it to indicate the mainstream church would not have embraced him had he been a womanizer, glutton, drunkard, and pedophile.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
73
31
47
76
Popular Days
Feb 3
25
Jul 16
21
May 15
21
Feb 21
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 73 posts
geisha779 31 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 76 posts
Popular Days
Feb 3 2010
25 posts
Jul 16 2018
21 posts
May 15 2019
21 posts
Feb 21 2010
21 posts
Popular Posts
Sunesis
Well, we do have over 30,000 Christian denominations, so I don't think you're going to see all Christians agreeing. I imagine that's why it is more important to God that we keep the unity of the Spir
Broken Arrow
I think I get what you're trying to do here as far as getting people to think through something that may have simply been accepted blindly. I'm not going to offer a lengthy defense as to the authenti
Raf
First, to DWBH, please, let's keep it about content and not about people. And in that vein...I for one don't care one whit about what TLC might see or think on the matter. I only care about the actual
Posted Images
geisha779
I am not sure I am understanding the whole premise here.
I live with a freakishly talented musician. He has literally taught himself to play any instrument he has ever picked up . . . . starting with the touch-tone phone at the age of 4. One day he sat down and wrote the most beautiful piece of music I have heard in a long time. It took him a few hours to write it, record all the parts, and mix them together for a stunning result.
Fascinated, I asked him how he did this . . .
He simply said he was inspired. It was still him writing the notes and it was his talent. .. . but, the inspiration for that music came from somewhere. Probably a poor analogy, but we do have some kind of understanding about what it means to be inspired by something. It is not an unheard of concept. It should almost be more clear to those with artistic leaning. Musicians, artists, creative people. Although, inspiration is not limited.
Scripture writing, being an inspired act, should not be a confusing idea? One may choose to not believe that declaration of inspiration within these ancient documents, (more than one set of scripture declares this) but the notion that . . . yes, it was Paul's words, doesn't serve to disprove the idea of them being inspired by God.
Holy men. . . a specific kind of person . . . spoke their own words. . . in their own style. . . in their own language . . . with their own understanding . . . inspired, or moved by the Holy Spirit. I guess it helps to understand the concept of holiness and how the Holy Spirit moves within the life of a Christian. If that is not something one does understand. . . it is fairly easy to ask a Christian to explain it. . . or even allow the scriptures themselves to enlighten us to the concept. They do that when we are not trying to tell them what they are saying, but let them tell us. I think we missed that in TWI.
Another bad analogy. . . Dear Abby can write a piece of advice addressing a particular problem or issue. Does that mean the advice is only relevant to the person to whom it is particularly addressed? Can others accept the advice and use it in their own situation? What Paul wrote to particular church, facing specific issues, can be relevant to churches today. We can take those corrected doctrines and apply them within our own church and life. Especially if we believe the words written by Paul, his own words. . . are inspired by the Holy Spirit.
To me, what is more illuminating is that these same issues still arise in churches.
The whole concept of written language as a form of communication. . . . it is a very human thing. Christians believe God to be very engaged in the events of human history. That is the whole premise of Christian scripture.
Before the advent of television, radio, internet and email. . . . which we as a culture can relate to . . . letter writing was an art form . . . a duty. . . how we related to others important information. Books, not an antiquated or confusing concept. Taking relevant information presented at one time in letter form . . . . concerning a particular subject and putting it together in a book with other information about the same subject matter is not so far fetched.
The canon had a purpose and these doctrines and concepts were already understood. The understanding of an Apostle's purpose and calling were known. One doesn't have to accept the premise, but it doesn't mean there wasn't specific guidelines or reasons for what was accepted. The knowledge of false apostles and false letters being circulated is addressed in scripture. Thessalonians speaks to false letters . . . . other scripture addresses false teachers. . . .other scripture. . . . false doctrine.
A right and wrong way to understand certain things within the faith. What is so odd about that?
This specific collection makes claims about itself. It is great to evaluate its history. . . . but, limiting oneself to a particular method is like using just part of a recipe. At some point, we need to evaluate the text itself for its claims. It addresses the genesis of life, the human condition, and a specific historic figure who made claims relevant to all of mankind.
That is what we have . . . no matter who said it. . . wrote it down. . . copied it. . . or put it in book form. The Shakespeare on your shelf may have a few words wrong . . . a few passages tweaked, but the story line we can have some confidence in. . . .
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
One question for Geisha regarding her statement: "This specific collection makes claims about itself."
My question: Where is the statement?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Sometimes things get silly with people, and they argue. So at the heart of this is whether or not the Bible is God's Word, or whether it simply contains God's words. Now then,... which parts do we start crossing out? I am reminded of the Movie - Galaxy Quest and the references to the "Historical Record". Pretty funny stuff!
Maybe the whole Bible was just a TV show and the writers were really really slow at writing the episodes.
Maybe, in spite of all that was wrong with the Way, man's basic spriitual problem really is..... ,,,eh?
Well we get to choose, don't we?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I guess the claims(plural) depend on where you are reading really? No? Perhaps I should have written "within" itself again? Poor choice of a word at 4:15 AM?
Funny, I remember certain phrases I would watch for others to use while in TWI. My opportunity to get in there and "correct" according to TWI theology. It was so superficial. It didn't really matter what else they were saying. . . . I just waited for the gotcha phrase. I never engaged people in genuine conversation. . . . I always had those few formulaic questions ready and waiting. Endless arguments over words.
But, then again, I was rather "fundamentalist" in my approach, had my own agenda, and was trained in a cult.
That being said . . . . . the claims it makes within itself . . . vary.
Some things claim to be an orderly account. . . . narrative. . . some are written in specific genres . . . like histories or the apocalyptic genre of the day . . . . . some are didactic. Some claims are to being letters written to specific churches . . . they proclaim purposes. . . given to correct certain problems that crept into the church by men just like VP with their own agenda and gospel.
If we are looking for verses . . . happy to have that doctrinal discussion . . . maybe. . . in the appropriate forum.
You are absolutely correct when you say those letters are not written to you. They were written for people who already believed in the Lord by hearing the gospel message. Faith comes by hearing the message .. . . the text . . . having it speak to your heart as true. . . . Many, never even saw it in written form. The letters are not really evangelical tools.
In TWI we believed in the book to nearly the exclusion of all else including the message. If one's faith in the book is rocked .. . the rest collapses. . . . makes perfect sense.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Gosh, I just wondered where in the Bible the claim was that referred to the whole Bible, since the Bible wasn't put together until LONG after any of those documents were written. Anyway, no big deal. Too many canons can be called the Bible anyway, which complicates the matter further.
Guess as an unbeliever in the statement that the Bible is God's Word, I'll step out of this thread. I ain't no scholar or theologian...I just ask too many silly questions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Which I believe you have mentioned before . .. no? So, I simply corrected my wording and answered your question. Should not be a problem. I thought it was clear enough in the context, but maybe not.
I am sorry that is all you took or wanted to discuss from my lengthy post.
Your other thread actually inspired me to read Inerrancy by Norm Geisler. I have had it hanging around for awhile. It is a good book and addresses many of your questions. You might enjoy it.
Don't step out . . . I will. . . this is your kind of topic . . . Enjoy!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Geisha,
Just so you know, you give me plenty to think over and I do appreciate the time you take in your posts. Your many descriptions of the different documents in the Bible and what they say of themselves were lovely. And they were just that: different documents. My question was along a different line, though. To me, since each description or claim or statement you gave is from or about a particular book in the Bible (a stand-alone piece of writing) none of them is referring to the Bible as a whole. We both know this and most readers here do, too, that since the Bible was assembled years later than the time when those passages were written, how in the world could any of those passages refer to the final product called the Bible? It didn’t exist when they were written. That was what I was questioning.
My question was about trying to understand how, as many people do, using one description in one gospel or epistle or Old Testament book could be a statement about the whole Bible? It seems impossible to me. For instance, VP and others interpret such statements as John 17:17 as referring to the Bible, but that verse in fact is from a prayer Jesus was saying out loud to God, and included the phrase: “Thy word is truth.” Jesus did not say (and I know this is silly but bear with me) these books in the Bible are “truth” because obviously there was no Bible yet and (we both know this, too) the men who decided which documents to put in it were not in agreement for a long time. This info is readily available, even on Wikipedia (for anyone reading this who wants more info).
Anyhow, to avoid pounding this into the ground (or repeating myself as was mentioned I do) I’ll just sign off by saying my interest is in understanding each document in the Bible separately, on its own terms, and how the men who wrote them came to do it. Geisha, I think that’s where our mix up in communication often stems from...maybe not. No hard feelings...
Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
Erkjohn,
I followed you until you said this:
Non sequitur.
Any number of Joseph Smiths and VP Wierwilles have left their mark on religious history while being loose cannons and womanizers. And they were not necessarily run out of town on a rail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
It is interesting to note how most modern Christians unquestionably accept the canonization of scripture which was done by a Roman pope well after the death of the apostles. That very well may be a flawed major premise in VPW's whole approach. The OT seems to be relatively well packaged with the "jots and tittles". The NT, not so much - harmony of the gospels has seen plenty of struggles, even if the 4 viewpoints approach is valid. The different letters, extrapolating to THE answer to EVERYTHING FOR ALL time may be a leap - they were personal to an individual or a church. Dispensationalism, or administrations - TWI's teachings on the tithe and debt have so many logical disparities that all the distinctions taught there may not be as distinct as you would think - people like things fitting into nice little buckets.
Can I still believe "holy men of God wrote as they were inspired by the Holy Ghost"? Yes. I think so. Inspiration is the basis for all good writing. What about contradictions? Well, people in and of themselves are inherent contradictions, so that's no surprise.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Jesus Himself read from the scrolls. He affirmed them and their authority. . . even saying at one point they were being fulfilled right there before their eyes. The Apostles held the same reverence that Jesus did . . . for the written word. It was no light issue. These men, with the exception of John, died for the purpose of being a witness to these things.
That makes them worth more than a cursory logic when denying them . . . IMO.
If the originals were not perfect . . . then no real error has crept in. There was nothing true or right to corrupt in the first place. No perfect originals. . . . no error. Case closed.
OR
Something original is going to be perfect for what it is. . . . being the first thing done from which copies are made. But, what do we mean by perfect? From where I sit. . . language and man's ability to communicate through language is not perfect. Look at these forums. . . and most of us have an education which would rival that of a fisherman. So, perfect grammar, perfect precise and exact wording, perfect hidden meaning? No. That is a form of gnostic perception of scripture and in part why Gnostics are so drawn to Paul's epistles. It is what we in TWI were searching for from the scriptures. Men wrote these books and letters.
Why do the scriptures have authority OVER THE CHURCH? Because they are God breathed? I guess so. . .but what does that even mean? What does inspired by God even mean? We are not speaking about the Koran. But, if you listen to TWI one would think we were. It is the Koran that Muslim's claim is the EXACT representation of God. Scripture. . . according to Paul is inspired by God. Written by men. About something for a purpose. It is meant to be the revelation and definitive witness to Jesus Christ as Lord. The rule of faith and of life.
Or is it because some guys got together and decided it had authority?
Letters circulated from the get go and it was common practice for some of them to be read in the different churches. That instruction is still with us today. 1st Thess. 5:27 Not all the letters had the same authority. Some were Apostolic in nature. The Apostles were known as they also circulated. Copies circulated among the churches from early on. They were authoritative depending on who wrote them about what. . . . false letters circulated too. Paul addresses this in his letter to the Thessalonians. Prior to AD 100 Paul's letters had already been collected and published. The Pauline Corpus. Paul's word was affirmed by Peter. If he was a con man, Peter would not have affirmed Paul's word.
The gospels were also collected and circulated. Outside their immediate area they were compared and contrasted. . . the result was that people started picking the gospel they liked the most. I believe Acts and 1 Peter and one of the Johns along with Revelation was also added early on. Different things were added in different places but, some not in our canon today. They did not have the Apostolic validity but, were still good writings. We can still read them. The Didache for example. I love reading that.
Coming from what we did, TWI, I would think it would be MORE clear to us than almost anyone else about the need that the church had to establish the validity of the Apostolic writings. . . . given the rise of pick and choose a book Gnostics with their varied theologies which stood diametrically opposed to the church. And why didn't we revere the gospels as we did the Pauline epistles in TWI. Why were they down played and nearly dismissed the same way they were by some groups early on?
Although the 21 book canon by 200AD or the canon we have today was debated and books challenged. . . that should give us more confidence. . . not less. . . that we have a good bible. That it was accepted for the most part as having authority over the church is phenomenal. It was not a contrived result. It has been honored ever since. . . despite divisions.
Oral tradition, tested witnesses, daily faith. . . . life/death. . . .people STILL dying for this truth . . . heady factors IMO.
You can't get ten of us on here to agree to the same thing for more than 5 minutes. Never mind adhere to it for 20 minutes. So far, the bible has buried all its pall bearers. I think the scriptures mention something about that too.
But, the authority of scripture itself was not what the canon was seeking to prove was it?
The understanding of sacred scripture was already a heritage.. Our attitude toward scripture. . . . . as Christians, comes from Jesus attitude. He identified Himself with that authority. He confirmed this to His disciples. . . no? He claimed to be the Messiah. . . the fulfillment of scripture. If the words given to Moses were revered. . . kept. . . handed down. . . preserved. . . . how much more important would it be that those of the fulfillment of these prophecies be recorded?
Still, scripture is suppose to be inspired by God, so it is God's ballgame I guess. The people who debated and worked the canon didn't authorize the writing of scripture. . . the OT prophet's didn't raise themselves up for lives of misery. The Apostles who were martyred . . . probably not their life long ambition. There is a spiritual element. Probably best not to discount that when evaluating the scriptures. They testify of this. . . so consider it at least. God selects the time, the people, and the human element if the scriptures are to be believed.
The providence of God. I love that term.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"All scripture is God breathed and----- holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
How do you know?
It says so in "The Word".
Who made the statement?
Paul.
How do you know he was right?
It says so in "The Word"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gen-2
Yes indeed Waysider, it is a bit of tail-chasing.
Here's another one, just to demonstrate the silliness.
If the Bible says that Paul said, "XYZ" Does that mean that God said it? or just Paul. There's a mathematical principle that could be applied to prove Paul is God kicking around in the back of my head, but as I said, this was silliness.
Tail-chasing.
Edited by Gen-2Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
I will go you one better Waysider, the scriptures do not prove the existence of God. . . . they don't even defend it. . . they simply declare it.
Declarative statements. . . you never use them in contrast to a question or a command?
A statement that something is. . . just that. . . what it is.
You don't have to accept the answers in scripture as true, but they are provided for you.
Whether you are responsible to the God declared in scripture for your acceptance is a question we all answer for ourselves. That might even be the whole point to the exercise of life. Scripture declares it is. . . . . it declares the reasons for this life.
People don't accept the answers because they compel belief and they do not violate one's free-will decision. The message speaks to the heart.
Oddly, the message does call people to decision by its declarative nature. Jesus did not go around begging people to believe in God. . . He declared Him.
However, this thread is eerily reminiscent of how we approached scripture in TWI. Always with something to prove.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well, it's one thing to say you accept something "on faith".
I'm down with that.
We all do that with one thing or another in our lives.
But, using circular logic to "explain away" something that has been taken "on faith" is a horse of a completely different color.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I understand what you are saying here..
but who other than Paul's claims exist that these conditions were true to begin with?
Its just a question..
five times I was beat forty stripes save one..
thrice with rods..
acts records the records with Barnabas and Saul..
the earthquake..
the Jailor saved with his house..
If it were all true, surely it is noble and all..
reminds me of my favorite movie..
"tell me, were you ever tortured?"
"well yes.."
"you probably know, those fellows are going to give me a pretty good working over.."
how does anybody ever stand up to torture..
"well, Jack, nobody does.. "
In the end.. they just wanted to have some kind of "fun"..
I dunno.. I could keep on saying.. maybe you don't want to hear..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Despite religious manoeuvring.. I still see the light.. what about you?
:)
Its bigger than me, or any other self-proclaimed manogawd..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
A thousand years from now-----
"He sacrificed his very own eye for his keeeds. And, when that wasn't enough, he turned his face to the wall and, with a broken heart and shattered liver, was heard to say, 'I wish I was a man. I know I could have been.'"
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I saw Him on the way home tonight.. but christ.. he's always there.. what's the big deal..
:)
the first time you look.. it burns you alive..
I won't say any more.
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Well, I do think you can come to a decision weighing the evidence, like CS Lewis, Lee Strobel, or the most interesting Anthony Flew . . . a hardcore atheist and a brilliant mind. These guys have really interesting stories. Ravi Zacharias too. Ultimately it is a decision. How we examine the evidence and relate to it varies.
How we process information really matters.
How is it circular logic? Paul, as an Apostle of Jesus Christ as he claims, making a declarative statement within scripture. There is a church now. There was a church in the 1st century. We have these letters written by Paul to the early churches. In one of the letters Paul makes a definitive statement. . . . scripture is. . . yada yada. I have access to all kinds of things called scripture. I can read the bible, the Koran. . . anything I want . . . look at human history, relate to God's movement within it. . . see God within the creation. . . and I can evaluate that statement and decide whether I believe it or don't believe it.
I am not compelled to believe it just because it is IN the bible.
If I believed it because it IS scripture. . . . you might have a case. . . . but, if I believe it to be a true declarative statement by evaluating it.. . . . no.
Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. Well, that makes fulfilled prophecy more clear. . . . and how we got a story full of continuity and congruence over 3 continents, 3 languages, 1500 years, 66 books, and 40 authors from all walks of life telling one story about one particular man to come . . . having arrived. . . did what He did and left. .. promising to return. That explanation . . . the inspired thingy rings a bell with me.
But, you have to assume people simply believe it because it is scripture. How do you know this? Oh, oops. . . well, perhaps many of us did that in TWI. . . well, okay that is a given. But, we were in a cult.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Imagine.. in about 7/10 of a second, one finds all one believed to be well.. wrong.. what would you do?
it may happen one day..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yeah, yeah. "I am a child of the light.."
how many times does one have to walk through that door of perception..
it's like.. if its done, isn't it a done deal?
maybe some haven't walked through the door to begin with.. I dunno..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Just cause you don't see a bunch of "psychedelic" dang anymore.. does that make it any less real, or unreal, depending on one's point of view?
sorry, I said more..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You're kiddin', right?
"All prophesy of the scripture is God breathed"
How do we know that's true?
Well, it says so in the scriptures and because "All prophesy of the scripture is God breathed", it must be true.
:blink:
Kinda reminds me of that song by Nick Lowe (a man)-----
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
I'm not saying Paul would not have garnered a following if he had been a Wierwille, Smith, etc. My point is that the mainstream church would not have embraced his writings had his conduct been as such. The church in Jerusalem along with its leadership as well as the churches in Rome, Antioch and what was then considered Asia all recognized and accepted Paul's leadership. If he had been a Wierwille, Smith etc., he would have been branded a false teacher by those churches. It was not as if those churches had not pointed out other false teachers and warned their fellow Christians about them. I'm suggesting as evidence of his authenticity the way he was accepted by his peers whom we know were true believers. That is, the Apostles at Jerusalem along with James and Barnabus. "Run out of town on a rail" is probably a bad choice of metaphor but I used it to indicate the mainstream church would not have embraced him had he been a womanizer, glutton, drunkard, and pedophile.
Edited by erkjohnLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.