responding to common objections to bible

[Sigurd]

i agree 100% with your first paragraph. that is why just because Mormons Jehovah witness claim to be true christian does not make them.

Even between denominations seemingly very alike, there are fundamental differences. Take your "faith" (I put it in quotes because I am assuming) and compare it with a similar evangelical faith - the Pentacostals. Outwardly they seem the same, some pentacostals adhere to special appearance for women, but that is not the general norm. But if you look into the dogma - you find different views on important principles like the Godhead or salvation. Baptists hold to once saved always saved, while the pentacostals believe you can fall from grace.
There are also some unclear differences on Trinitianism. If you ask one Baptist he might agree with a Pentacostal, but a Baptist can disagree with another Baptist or a Pentacostal will not agree with a Baptist and his fellow Pentacostal on the nature of the Godhead. This tells me they don't have a set Dogma on this issue and its members are free to interpret as they want = not a principle of faith.
But then the Pentaostals will say that Baptists are not true Christians because they are not speaking in tongues, as true Christians do or should do.

second, i agree as well, people dont read bible much anymore and instead listen to what others tell them to believe, very very dangerous. You sound like my pastor lol.

I believe this is true for the majority of church goers - even Mormons and JWs. They don't quite know their faith's gospel principles. I have been in situations where I instruct the debater on their supposed belief. "Well you say that as an individual, but your faith has an official doctrine on said matter, which is this..."

but if i remember right your claim was their are books that should be in bible that are not, there gospels, all i can say from watching debates/responses are they are not included for clear reasons.

I believe those reasons are clear, but entangled in the making of dogma. If it doesn't conform to what you are about to introduce as THE GOSPEL PRINCIPLES, you throw it out for dross.
I will ask you this - you might now of the tradition of not destroying records regarded as holy (The Judaic tradition of hiding worn out scripture in caches because you were no allowed to destroy it). Some believe the Dead Sea Scrolls are such a cache. But later finds suggest that these were preserved for a later audience. Written (copied I might say) onto new sheets, bound up and preserved. This because as they say - to preserve them from corruption. Not a corruption of the media they were recorded on, but from meddling hands. They were convinced that texts were tampered with.
Same with the Nag-Hammadi codexes, which were preserved by Christians. The reason for hiding the codexes are not clear, but they were hidden around the time where the discussion of what is cannon and what is not raged in the early church. There were found other caches involving texts from the NT era all around the area of Israel (Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt) and I believe the number of different texts are about 120.

It is common for most Christians today to not question why. Why only the books found in NT today?
Who gave the greek doctor Athanasius authority to decide what was canon and what was not? He together with many of the early church doctors were educated in Alexandria by the crew who made the Pentauch. The bunch of them NeoPlatonists.
I might sound conspiratorial here... but why not the skepticism towards a complete Bible? and I am not basing any of this on mr Brown. These questions come from among others the scholars that worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library:
H. F. Weiss, W. Richter, H. A. Brongers, Carl Schmidt, Edgar Hennecke, William Schneemelcher, Montague R. James, Solomon Zeitlin, Alan H. Gardiner, H. Nibley, James Robinson and Walter C. Till. And many more who wrote commentaries on this subject.

jesus was last prophet sent, yes i claim because i believe what the bible says on the issue. If your not aware the nt was written by apostles of jesus about jesus, the last prophet. The bible again claims and jesus that the disciples had [and i believe] divine inspiration. So no one was making anything up as you claim.

No.. no that is a cop out. If what you say is true... "no divine inspiration after Jesus", then you can't regard the letters of Paul or the Revelations of John as inspired texts. And should be removed from the Bible - the book that includes only that which was inspired. In fact - all scripture not directly quoting a saying of Jesus, the last prophet should be removed. I suggest you revise your evangelical dogma of Jesus being the last prophet. Clearly Peter was one and Paul was one if what they wrote was considered inspired by dr. Athanasius.

[total relism]

Even between denominations seemingly very alike, there are fundamental differences. Take your "faith" (I put it in quotes because I am assuming) and compare it with a similar evangelical faith - the Pentacostals. Outwardly they seem the same, some pentacostals adhere to special appearance for women, but that is not the general norm. But if you look into the dogma - you find different views on important principles like the Godhead or salvation. Baptists hold to once saved always saved, while the pentacostals believe you can fall from grace.
There are also some unclear differences on Trinitianism. If you ask one Baptist he might agree with a Pentacostal, but a Baptist can disagree with another Baptist or a Pentacostal will not agree with a Baptist and his fellow Pentacostal on the nature of the Godhead. This tells me they don't have a set Dogma on this issue and its members are free to interpret as they want = not a principle of faith.
But then the Pentaostals will say that Baptists are not true Christians because they are not speaking in tongues, as true Christians do or should do.

i agree with you as i said before, i just dont know what this has to do with anything related to topic. I go to a baptist church yet think most likely you can fall from grace etc. Your picking a few debatable topics like trinity etc im not sure what the point is. Nowhere does the bible say you must believe in the trinity of god or use the word trinity. You claim differences on salvation yet have never supported that. What does this have to do with translation of the bible?. I think your main problem is thinking that somehow people have to outworldey or do rituals etc the same and that counts as "faith". i think you have missed the whole bible my friend.

I believe this is true for the majority of church goers - even Mormons and JWs. They don't quite know their faith's gospel principles. I have been in situations where I instruct the debater on their supposed belief. "Well you say that as an individual, but your faith has an official doctrine on said matter, which is this..."

agreed, but your mistake i think is thinking that somehow the authority is in what a churches stance is on a subject instead of bible, the very thing you blame people for doing. Do you not see that?.

I believe those reasons are clear, but entangled in the making of dogma. If it doesn't conform to what you are about to introduce as THE GOSPEL PRINCIPLES, you throw it out for dross.
I will ask you this - you might now of the tradition of not destroying records regarded as holy (The Judaic tradition of hiding worn out scripture in caches because you were no allowed to destroy it). Some believe the Dead Sea Scrolls are such a cache. But later finds suggest that these were preserved for a later audience. Written (copied I might say) onto new sheets, bound up and preserved. This because as they say - to preserve them from corruption. Not a corruption of the media they were recorded on, but from meddling hands. They were convinced that texts were tampered with.
Same with the Nag-Hammadi codexes, which were preserved by Christians. The reason for hiding the codexes are not clear, but they were hidden around the time where the discussion of what is cannon and what is not raged in the early church. There were found other caches involving texts from the NT era all around the area of Israel (Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine and Egypt) and I believe the number of different texts are about 120.

It is common for most Christians today to not question why. Why only the books found in NT today?
Who gave the greek doctor Athanasius authority to decide what was canon and what was not? He together with many of the early church doctors were educated in Alexandria by the crew who made the Pentauch. The bunch of them NeoPlatonists.
I might sound conspiratorial here... but why not the skepticism towards a complete Bible? and I am not basing any of this on mr Brown. These questions come from among others the scholars that worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library:
H. F. Weiss, W. Richter, H. A. Brongers, Carl Schmidt, Edgar Hennecke, William Schneemelcher, Montague R. James, Solomon Zeitlin, Alan H. Gardiner, H. Nibley, James Robinson and Walter C. Till. And many more who wrote commentaries on this subject.
.

Well i agree many just think the bible so it must be the right books, may i suggest its because they believe in divine inspiration?. You keep giving authority to man, in that case the bible is the works of man and i care not for it. I say its gods word as it claims and god stamped divine authority on the apostles and no other. But a great book showing for you how man never decided what goes in bible, only recognized what was already divinely inspired is
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Deman.../dp/0785243631

also has responses to why other books are left out.


I have no problem with you being skeptical of right books in bible i was myself. That is what debates/material are for. What books do you feel should be included in canon that are not?.

No.. no that is a cop out. If what you say is true... "no divine inspiration after Jesus", then you can't regard the letters of Paul or the Revelations of John as inspired texts. And should be removed from the Bible - the book that includes only that which was inspired. In fact - all scripture not directly quoting a saying of Jesus, the last prophet should be removed. I suggest you revise your evangelical dogma of Jesus being the last prophet. Clearly Peter was one and Paul was one if what they wrote was considered inspired by dr. Athanasius.

never said that your creating a strawman argument,i said jesus was last prophet. I alredy showed were jesus said he was last sent,also look at jude 3 were it says bible was sent once for all. If you believe Mormons are correct [starting to think you are one] i suggest these.

What Do Mormons Really Believe
http://www.amazon.com/What-Mormons-R.../dp/B005FH5D2S
debate 1-2 Mormons -VS- Christianity - DEBATE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKxQfbdYYSA
you can also find many debates/books/videos found here
http://store.aomin.org/christian-apo...mormonism.html

the fact is Mormon doctrine contradicts bible in many areas as those debate show, but this thread is not on mormons. Jesus was last prophet sent if we accept the bible, i do you don so we will never agree on this issue.

[Sigurd]

i agree with you as i said before, i just dont know what this has to do with anything related to topic. I go to a baptist church yet think most likely you can fall from grace etc. Your picking a few debatable topics like trinity etc im not sure what the point is. Nowhere does the bible say you must believe in the trinity of god or use the word trinity. You claim differences on salvation yet have never supported that. What does this have to do with translation of the bible?. I think your main problem is thinking that somehow people have to outworldey or do rituals etc the same and that counts as "faith". i think you have missed the whole bible my friend.

Did you completely miss my point where the Pentacostals declare anyone not using (having) the gift of tongues as not Christian. That means you my friend. Do you agree that they might have a point? Or do you agree that they should shut their trap mouth and keep silent over something they shouldn't make a judgement call on? It is not for the Pentacostals to declare Baptist not Christian as it is not for Baptists to declare Mormons not Christians. As long as someone declare themselves a follower of Christ - they have the right to that label.

agreed, but your mistake i think is thinking that somehow the authority is in what a churches stance is on a subject instead of bible, the very thing you blame people for doing. Do you not see that?.

Divine inspiration was given to few not the many. As the NT are full of examples of. Paul declared doctrine and the churches followed. Individual interpretations were frowned upon and corrected by the church leaders.

Well i agree many just think the bible so it must be the right books, may i suggest its because they believe in divine inspiration?. You keep giving authority to man, in that case the bible is the works of man and i care not for it. I say its gods word as it claims and god stamped divine authority on the apostles and no other. But a great book showing for you how man never decided what goes in bible, only recognized what was already divinely inspired is
http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Deman.../dp/0785243631

also has responses to why other books are left out.

Sorry... I don't trust Josh McDowell as an authority on this matter. He is in contradiction to many of the authoritative scholars I mentioned. This man is an Creationist with the big C... Pseudo science is what follows his wake.

I have no problem with you being skeptical of right books in bible i was myself. That is what debates/material are for. What books do you feel should be included in canon that are not?.

How about the Apocryphon of John or Gospel of Phillip?

never said that your creating a strawman argument,i said jesus was last prophet. I alredy showed were jesus said he was last sent,also look at jude 3 were it says bible was sent once for all. If you believe Mormons are correct [starting to think you are one] i suggest these.

I don't think you interpret Matthew 21 (not 23 as you wrote) correctly. How does that parable directed at the Jews translate to Jesus being the last prophet?
It states that servants of God will collect what is produced by the vineyard, but the tenants killed those servants, and lastly the heir of the vineyard. Then he proceeds to tell them that the vineyard will be taken from them and given to other more faithful tenants... now who will collect the produce from them? If you equate servants with prophets - then naturally there will be prophets collecting from the new tenants.. those who have been given the vineyard. And I believe Christians see themselves as those tenants.. only.. they don't believe the servants exist..

What Do Mormons Really Believe
http://www.amazon.com/What-Mormons-R.../dp/B005FH5D2S
debate 1-2 Mormons -VS- Christianity - DEBATE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKxQfbdYYSA
you can also find many debates/books/videos found here
http://store.aomin.org/christian-apo...mormonism.html

the fact is Mormon doctrine contradicts bible in many areas as those debate show, but this thread is not on Mormons. Jesus was last prophet sent if we accept the bible, i do you don so we will never agree on this issue.

Sorry... I don't believe in anti-literature. Its of the devil Christians should get over themselves being un-christian towards each other. After Chick publications, I don't believe any anti-something literature is produced with other intent than being malicious and evil.
Again... I don't think the Bible does ever state that Jesus was the last prophet. Check my definition of a prophet / servant and stop vomiting rehashed evangelical anti-mormon bullshit. It's poor form and poor usage of the scriptures.

[Rhyfelwyr]

second, i agree as well, people dont read bible much anymore and instead listen to what others tell them to believe, very very dangerous. You sound like my pastor lol.

Indeed, but it's arguably more dangerous for Joe Blogg to consider himself a theologian just because he has a rudimentary understanding of Christianity.

Last Sunday, one guy at my church delivered the evening teaching on the issue of where we go after we die. He said that we go to either Abraham's Bosom or Hades, temporary heaven and hell respectively. This would be the traditional mainstream Protestant understanding of things.

But I heard after the service one girl advocating another position to him - the idea of 'soul sleep', or that we die in the atheist sense until the Resurrection. She based this on a few quotes here and there, and seems to have fallen victim to the ambiguity regarding the meaning of words that studying verses in isolation can create.

The debate reminded me of Calvin's 'Psychopannychia', which was a small work dedicated to denouncing the idea of soul sleep that the Anabaptists of his time believed in. He did a thorough job, showing the scriptural evidence in support of Abraham's Bosom/Hades or the whole Sheol idea, as well as highlighting the fact that the Resurrection speaks specifically about our bodies, and that the soul, or life of a person is, through the scripture, seen as distinct from the body.

I got talking to somebody else before I could butt in - the speaker appeared to say to the girl that she might be right. I don't condemn them for it - I've been exposed to the same ideas over time and once gave them some credence. The scripture is so large that its very easy for people to be mislead by nit-picked verses.

Rhyfelwyr, our resident ultra protestant, understood immediately the nuance of the different salvations. And I believe it is because he actually has talked to people with different opinions on this specific topic.

You're on the mark. By accident, I've become something of a connoisseur of modern Protestantism. I've attended variously a liberal Church of Scotland congregation, a more traditional one, a Scottish Gospel Hall, a Northern Irish Gospel Hall (BIG culture gap across the sea there), and upon returning to Scotland, what I would call a more US-style Evangelical church (it was a Gospel Hall but they changed it to 'church' for practical rather than doctrinal reasons). I have attended all these for a good while each, with the exception of the Scottish Gospel Hall. I've also been exposed to more fringe beliefs through people I have known, from weird crypt-pagan Masonic stuff, to British Israelism.

I've always had some dialogue about doctrine at these places, because in all but the Church of Scotland ones, they certainly don't waste time in asking you where you stand, lol. Walking into a Gospel Hall and being asked "are you saved" was a bit of a culture shock for me.

Sigurd, while you are right to note the differences within different strands of Protestantism, it is also worth noting that I felt welcome, and as part of a Christian community, in all those environments, bar the first two. They are, on the whole, on the same page. I suspect that the Catholic Church would in reality have just as broad a spectrum of beliefs within its followers.

Still, personally I do not believe in being lax when it comes to what you believe. Christians today are conditioned by atheists to think that they have to be a certain way - that they have to allow any errors within their brethren out of some sort of sense of Christian charity. Or indeed, as you put it:

Christians should get over themselves being un-christian towards each other. After Chick publications, I don't believe any anti-something literature is produced with other intent than being malicious and evil.

This idea is wrong, and unscriptural. Dissention because of ego or a false sense of righteousness is condemned by Paul in the scripture - but a thirst for truth is not - "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled (Matthew 5:6)". Thirsting after righteousness was not in and of itself the bad trait of the Pharisees - their desire to be seen and respected for it was.

Calvin actually put it brilliantly in that very Psychopannychia text I mentioned:

"in the present day, persons may be seen giving full scope to a carping, biting, scoffing temper, who, if you were only to lay a finger on them, would make a lamentable outcry that "the Unity of the Church is rent in pieces, and Charity violated!" To such let this be our answer: First, That we acknowledge no Unity except in Christ; no Charity of which He is not the bond; and that, therefore, the chief point in preserving Charity is to maintain Faith sacred and entire. Secondly, That this Discussion may proceed without any violation of charity, provided the ears with which they listen correspond with the tongue which I employ."

It is common for most Christians today to not question why. Why only the books found in NT today?
Who gave the greek doctor Athanasius authority to decide what was canon and what was not? He together with many of the early church doctors were educated in Alexandria by the crew who made the Pentauch. The bunch of them NeoPlatonists.
I might sound conspiratorial here... but why not the skepticism towards a complete Bible? and I am not basing any of this on mr Brown. These questions come from among others the scholars that worked with the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library

Of course it is fair enough to ask questions about what should qualify as canonical. Some of the great Reformers even changed their opinions regarding the issue.

But some people use the question marks over certain texts to rubbish the whole concept of a divine scripture - this is wrong, and shown to be contrary to the beliefs of the earliest Christians by the sheer volume of textual evidence that indicates that they did believe in the concept of scriptural texts. This would most obviously apply to the Old Testament, which Jesus references as scripture on a number of occasions. Of course it has changed very slightly in its composition - but like I said we can see that Jesus believed in the idea of scripture. So modern Christians should as well.

Otherwise they will become heretics like PVC and throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm only goading you Philipvs!

Now you might say that the idea of a New Testament should be a lot more contentious. But consider 2 Peter 3:16 - "As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

So we have a letter where it shows that the Pauline Epistles (or at least some of them) were consider scripture. Now, while it would be circular logic to claim that as a scriptural source, it validates its claim as to what is scripture; it at least is a valuable source in indicating that the concept of New Testament scripture existed amongst the early believers. The quite casual and passing way in which their scriptural authority is mentioned indicates that this was a fairly accepted and non-contentious issue - long before Athanasius was around.

Naturally this still leaves room for contention over what precise texts are canonical. But we have to realise that the concept of a New Testament canon permeated the early church - surely a point of huge significance.

[Empire*Of*Media]

wow what a long Discussion !!
if you would speak about Islam it would Take more than some years !!!!
Jesus its not only what is in the Bible !! you think Jesus as a Relegion !! your wrong !! jesus was a great person like Zoroastra (Zarathushtra) or gandhi or buddha!!
but the matter is in medieval times some catholic popes took power and told many shits about Jesus !! and Completely Wrong !!
and the other matter is for those that dont believe in GOD (not relegion!) is the Mind Control of the Zionists & The FreeMasons (if you know who are they!!) that control the world and have USA-Europe-Israel and Jews and much of economies of the world and Specially the Culture Changer and mind controller THE HOLLYWOOD !!!

[Hax]

Your posts hurt my eyes.

[Sigurd]

Indeed, but it's arguably more dangerous for Joe Blogg to consider himself a theologian just because he has a rudimentary understanding of Christianity.

Last Sunday, one guy at my church delivered the evening teaching on the issue of where we go after we die. He said that we go to either Abraham's Bosom or Hades, temporary heaven and hell respectively. This would be the traditional mainstream Protestant understanding of things.

But I heard after the service one girl advocating another position to him - the idea of 'soul sleep', or that we die in the atheist sense until the Resurrection. She based this on a few quotes here and there, and seems to have fallen victim to the ambiguity regarding the meaning of words that studying verses in isolation can create.

The debate reminded me of Calvin's 'Psychopannychia', which was a small work dedicated to denouncing the idea of soul sleep that the Anabaptists of his time believed in. He did a thorough job, showing the scriptural evidence in support of Abraham's Bosom/Hades or the whole Sheol idea, as well as highlighting the fact that the Resurrection speaks specifically about our bodies, and that the soul, or life of a person is, through the scripture, seen as distinct from the body.

I got talking to somebody else before I could butt in - the speaker appeared to say to the girl that she might be right. I don't condemn them for it - I've been exposed to the same ideas over time and once gave them some credence. The scripture is so large that its very easy for people to be mislead by nit-picked verses.

I think your view is more in line with what the canon and extra-canonical material says on the matter. A temporary place for the righteous and another for the unrighteous awaiting judgement.
There are too many instances of where it indicates a continuation of "life" even without the body. You have Jesus on the cross stating that "today you will join me in paradise". You have Elijah and Moses appearing to Peter, James and John on the mountain. And the verse in Matthew (since we are currently there in this discussion anyway)

But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

(Matt 22:31-32)

He declares Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as among the living.

I've always had some dialogue about doctrine at these places, because in all but the Church of Scotland ones, they certainly don't waste time in asking you where you stand, lol. Walking into a Gospel Hall and being asked "are you saved" was a bit of a culture shock for me.

What would be your answer? Yes, No or awaiting a declaration from the Saviour upon Judgement day.

Sigurd, while you are right to note the differences within different strands of Protestantism, it is also worth noting that I felt welcome, and as part of a Christian community, in all those environments, bar the first two. They are, on the whole, on the same page. I suspect that the Catholic Church would in reality have just as broad a spectrum of beliefs within its followers.

Still, personally I do not believe in being lax when it comes to what you believe. Christians today are conditioned by atheists to think that they have to be a certain way - that they have to allow any errors within their brethren out of some sort of sense of Christian charity. Or indeed, as you put it:
[Sigurd stating that Christians need to get off their high horses]

This idea is wrong, and unscriptural. Dissention because of ego or a false sense of righteousness is condemned by Paul in the scripture - but a thirst for truth is not - "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled (Matthew 5:6)". Thirsting after righteousness was not in and of itself the bad trait of the Pharisees - their desire to be seen and respected for it was.

Righteousness and truth.. I don't think you can equate those as you did there. I think two persons can be equally righteous even though their beliefs might differ severely on important principles.
But that was a side step.. what I wanted to frown upon was the idea that you can tell someone they are non-christian. Someone with faith in Christ, following the two great commandments - shouldn't been told they go to hell, because they don't agree with your particular 1/35000th dogma on a particular principle. That is simply Pharisaic.
Christians ... take a step back and look across the expanse of ten thousands of churches and denominations, you can't all have THE truth, it's simply impossibly illogical. But they all still profess to have THE truth in their little trenches, taking pot shots at each other.

Of course it is fair enough to ask questions about what should qualify as canonical. Some of the great Reformers even changed their opinions regarding the issue.

But some people use the question marks over certain texts to rubbish the whole concept of a divine scripture - this is wrong, and shown to be contrary to the beliefs of the earliest Christians by the sheer volume of textual evidence that indicates that they did believe in the concept of scriptural texts. This would most obviously apply to the Old Testament, which Jesus references as scripture on a number of occasions. Of course it has changed very slightly in its composition - but like I said we can see that Jesus believed in the idea of scripture. So modern Christians should as well.

What makes scripture divine? Is the criterion being referenced? If so.. I'll add those to the missing scripture in the bible. Within the Bible there are references to texts not found in the Bible itself... why are these not compiled with the others? you will find thousands of references to existing bible scripture in non-canonical writings of the early fathers.. true (as rehashed by bible thumpers to the point of ad nauseam), but they discard the fact that these same fathers are pulling quotes from other scriptural texts not found in the bible. Why not just add them to the Bible? They were surly considered to be authorative enough to be used in theology writings of the early church.

Now you might say that the idea of a New Testament should be a lot more contentious. But consider 2 Peter 3:16 - "As also in all his [Paul's] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

So we have a letter where it shows that the Pauline Epistles (or at least some of them) were consider scripture. Now, while it would be circular logic to claim that as a scriptural source, it validates its claim as to what is scripture; it at least is a valuable source in indicating that the concept of New Testament scripture existed amongst the early believers. The quite casual and passing way in which their scriptural authority is mentioned indicates that this was a fairly accepted and non-contentious issue - long before Athanasius was around.

Naturally this still leaves room for contention over what precise texts are canonical. But we have to realise that the concept of a New Testament canon permeated the early church - surely a point of huge significance.

Looking in the NEB translation, it states:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience with us is our salvation, as Paul, our friend and brother, said when he wrote to you with his inspired wisdom. And so he does in all his other letters, wherever he speaks of this subject, though they contain some obscure passages, which the ignorant and unstable misinterpret to their own ruin, as they do the other scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:15-16)

To me it looks like Paul was quoting scripture in his letters and that Peter think them obscure - though canonical. But Peter do think Paul has inspired wisdom or prophetic gifts. I also think that the NT does not contain all of Paul's letters.
Using this in debate on particularly questioned principles, does nothing more than affirm that individuals oups.. sorry, the ignorant and unstable are not qualified to interpret scripture.

wow what a long Discussion !!
if you would speak about Islam it would Take more than some years !!!!
Jesus its not only what is in the Bible !! you think Jesus as a Relegion !! your wrong !! jesus was a great person like Zoroastra (Zarathushtra) or gandhi or buddha!!
but the matter is in medieval times some catholic popes took power and told many shits about Jesus !! and Completely Wrong !!
and the other matter is for those that dont believe in GOD (not relegion!) is the Mind Control of the Zionists & The FreeMasons (if you know who are they!!) that control the world and have USA-Europe-Israel and Jews and much of economies of the world and Specially the Culture Changer and mind controller THE HOLLYWOOD !!!

I'll let you deal with this one TR...

[Brenus]

"I'll let you deal with this one TR... " That is mean...

[Empire*Of*Media]

"I'll let you deal with this one TR... " That is mean...

what does that mean !!!!!!

[total relism]

Did you completely miss my point where the Pentacostals declare anyone not using (having) the gift of tongues as not Christian. That means you my friend. Do you agree that they might have a point? Or do you agree that they should shut their trap mouth and keep silent over something they shouldn't make a judgement call on? It is not for the Pentacostals to declare Baptist not Christian as it is not for Baptists to declare Mormons not Christians. As long as someone declare themselves a follower of Christ - they have the right to that label.


Divine inspiration was given to few not the many. As the NT are full of examples of. Paul declared doctrine and the churches followed. Individual interpretations were frowned upon and corrected by the church leaders.


Sorry... I don't trust Josh McDowell as an authority on this matter. He is in contradiction to many of the authoritative scholars I mentioned. This man is an Creationist with the big C... Pseudo science is what follows his wake.


How about the Apocryphon of John or Gospel of Phillip?


I don't think you interpret Matthew 21 (not 23 as you wrote) correctly. How does that parable directed at the Jews translate to Jesus being the last prophet?
It states that servants of God will collect what is produced by the vineyard, but the tenants killed those servants, and lastly the heir of the vineyard. Then he proceeds to tell them that the vineyard will be taken from them and given to other more faithful tenants... now who will collect the produce from them? If you equate servants with prophets - then naturally there will be prophets collecting from the new tenants.. those who have been given the vineyard. And I believe Christians see themselves as those tenants.. only.. they don't believe the servants exist..



Sorry... I don't believe in anti-literature. Its of the devil Christians should get over themselves being un-christian towards each other. After Chick publications, I don't believe any anti-something literature is produced with other intent than being malicious and evil.
Again... I don't think the Bible does ever state that Jesus was the last prophet. Check my definition of a prophet / servant and stop vomiting rehashed evangelical anti-mormon bullshit. It's poor form and poor usage of the scriptures.

as i said before i judge on what bible says, you judge on what people claim, even though you admitted to claims not equaling true theology. Mormons are not just a denomination. But yes all believe they are correct, what i or anyone else says does not equal truth, what the bible says does, if we believe it is true as i do.



sorry still no idea what your point is on this, what your trying to say/argue.



well assuming its all true, good thing its not his opinion but scholars/facts he presents, be careful you don't indoctrinate yourself.



well i admit i have never herd of Apocryphon of John before. But it is a Gnostic writing
is a 2nd-century AD Sethian Gnostic Christian text of secret teachings
The opening words of the Secret Book of John are "The teaching of the saviour, and the revelation of the mysteries and the things hidden in silence, even these things which he taught John, his disciple." The author John is immediately specified as "John, the brother of James — who are the sons of Zebedee." The remainder of the book is a vision of spiritual realms and of the prior history of spiritual humanity yet john died around 90 ad.
"an indescribable number of secret and illegitimate writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish people, who are ignorant of the true scriptures"

detailing of classic dualistic Gnostic mythology that has survived; as one of the principal texts of the Nag Hammadi library, it is an essential text of study for anyone interested in Gnosticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocryphon_of_John


Gnostic gospels- why they are not from god or part of bible.
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserve...p=strobelT1139
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserve...belT1111http:/
/www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=CCNT1526



Gospel of Philip
is one of the Gnostic Gospels, a text of New Testament apocrypha, dating back to around the 3rd century
a collection of gnostic teachings and reflections, a "gnostic anthology"
The Gospel of Philip was written between 150 AD and 300 AD, while Philip himself died 80 AD, making it extremely unlikely to be his writing. Most scholars hold a 3rd century date of composition
Much of the Gospel of Philip is concerned with Gnostic views of the origin and nature of mankind
places the date "perhaps as late as the 2nd half of the 3rd century" and places its probable origin in Syria
gospel of phillip
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserve...?clip=CCNT1524

Gnostic gospels
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserve...p=strobelT1139
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserve...belT1111http:/
/www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=CCNT1526


landowner-god
vineyard-isreal
tenant-Religious leaders
slaves-profets
v37 finally last sent the son
notice 45 leaders knew he was speaking of them
jesus did die and was killed, but as we know he rose from the grave.

but in the end this is not mormon debate, jude, Deuteronomy, revaluations,these passages and more all refute mormons as christian.



well you seem the most bias ant knowledge person i know of. I gave you references with debates with top mormons in world many times over on many subjects,yet you dont care. The thing is you dont care what bible says or what moroms teach, you care not of truth but what you want to be true, and i care not of mormons on this thread.

I'll let you deal with this one TR...

"I'll let you deal with this one TR... " That is mean...

not much to deal with, baseless claims with no support and not really sure what hes saying.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Synopsis of Empire's post.

1) Jesus was not divine, but a human prophet after the manner of Buddha or Zoroaster.

2) The Catholic Church, during medieval times, distorted the message of Jesus for its own political ends, assigning meanings to his teachings that Christ would not have assigned and establishing doctrines and practices designed to promote and spread their power more than any faith effort.

3) (conjecture on my part) Since Jesus was a prophet and not divine, the Western Church is predicated on a lie and therefore invalid, however well or poorly intentioned.

4) Real geo-political power is in the hands of a quiet conspiracy/secret society comprised of Zionists (not all Jews, but those advocating an "Imperialist" Jewish agenda) and Free-Masons (that well-known secret society with so many "leading lights" among its membership).

5) Modern power has shifted from the theocratic imperialism (medieval church as controlled by #4 above) through nationalism/capitalism (still under #4 above, even in the "democratic" USA where it was better hidden) to the modern version of cultural imperialism (still controlled by #4 above and operating on an even more pervasive, albeit less militaristic, model of dominance).


So, TR and Siggy, he isn't so much arguing a point with either of you as he is attacking the basic given that Jesus is divine. Doesn't matter how elegant your arguments if the opponent can assert that your basic given premise is wrong. The arguments become moot.

[Sigurd]

but in the end this is not mormon debate, jude, Deuteronomy, revaluations,these passages and more all refute mormons as christian.

Baseless claims. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

well you seem the most bias ant knowledge person i know of. I gave you references with debates with top mormons in world many times over on many subjects,yet you dont care. The thing is you dont care what bible says or what moroms teach, you care not of truth but what you want to be true, and i care not of mormons on this thread.

Compared to denominical Christians, I am considered very objective. And I am an Agnostic, not a Mormon. I do have Mormon friends as I have Evangelical friends and even JW friends. An old friend of mine, a 70 year old JW woman from Glasgow, taught me near all I know about Egyptology.
And nice Argumentum ad Hominem by the way... I often do press born agains in debate so they show their true un-christian intolerant selves. Not all - I shall not generalize, but many do show their true colors.

You trying to tell me what the Bible says on these issues is... kinda contradictory of what you try to tell us not to do - to listen to what other people's interpretations are. I think you are indeed heavily influenced by what evangelical preachers write about e.g. the Mormons. Those preachers are today's Caiaphas, Ananias and the Sanhedrin. Judge ye by their fruits.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Haha! Nice one, but I saw it coming.

I do not consider myself one of those people I described, since I trust in intellectual study rather than cherry-picked verses from a single translation, and I do not furiously advocate every fanciful doctrine that comes my way without first looking thoroughly into things and consulting better minds than my own.

I think your view is more in line with what the canon and extra-canonical material says on the matter. A temporary place for the righteous and another for the unrighteous awaiting judgement.
There are too many instances of where it indicates a continuation of "life" even without the body. You have Jesus on the cross stating that "today you will join me in paradise". You have Elijah and Moses appearing to Peter, James and John on the mountain. And the verse in Matthew (since we are currently there in this discussion anyway)

But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

He declares Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as among the living.

It's nice to be in agreement!

What would be your answer? Yes, No or awaiting a declaration from the Saviour upon Judgement day.

Well at the time I wasn't sure what they meant by that so I blurted out something unconvincing-sounding about going to a different church previously.

But as for what you are getting at, I would say yes. More out of conviction than anything else. If you think I am shown to be out of line by scripture, I would be happy to discuss it.

Righteousness and truth.. I don't think you can equate those as you did there. I think two persons can be equally righteous even though their beliefs might differ severely on important principles.
But that was a side step.. what I wanted to frown upon was the idea that you can tell someone they are non-christian. Someone with faith in Christ, following the two great commandments - shouldn't been told they go to hell, because they don't agree with your particular 1/35000th dogma on a particular principle. That is simply Pharisaic.
Christians ... take a step back and look across the expanse of ten thousands of churches and denominations, you can't all have THE truth, it's simply impossibly illogical. But they all still profess to have THE truth in their little trenches, taking pot shots at each other.

If the bolded bit is an argument against advocating sound doctrine then it is surely ad hominem - "there are lots of different claims to the truth, therefore there is no truth"

As for the conflation of righteousness and truth - it is appropriate in as much that is through saving faith in Jesus Christ that we are may stand righteous before God. No matter how thoroughly somebody adheres to the law, without him "there is none righteous, no, not one".

Regarding telling self-identifying Christians that they are not really Christians, that is not Pharasaic if they do not hold to core Christian beliefs (minor points of doctrine is another matter). We can discuss who is right, but we can't both be right.

What makes scripture divine? Is the criterion being referenced? If so.. I'll add those to the missing scripture in the bible. Within the Bible there are references to texts not found in the Bible itself... why are these not compiled with the others? you will find thousands of references to existing bible scripture in non-canonical writings of the early fathers.. true (as rehashed by bible thumpers to the point of ad nauseam), but they discard the fact that these same fathers are pulling quotes from other scriptural texts not found in the bible. Why not just add them to the Bible? They were surly considered to be authorative enough to be used in theology writings of the early church.

Looking in the NEB translation, it states:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience with us is our salvation, as Paul, our friend and brother, said when he wrote to you with his inspired wisdom. And so he does in all his other letters, wherever he speaks of this subject, though they contain some obscure passages, which the ignorant and unstable misinterpret to their own ruin, as they do the other scriptures.
(2 Peter 3:15-16)

To me it looks like Paul was quoting scripture in his letters and that Peter think them obscure - though canonical. But Peter do think Paul has inspired wisdom or prophetic gifts. I also think that the NT does not contain all of Paul's letters.
Using this in debate on particularly questioned principles, does nothing more than affirm that individuals oups.. sorry, the ignorant and unstable are not qualified to interpret scripture.

I have been neither ignorant nor unstable in this case, since you are arguing against something I never said. I have said there is overwhelming evidence in support of the concept that a divinely inspired scripture is part of the Christian faith. I did not say that any of the evidence I gave does, of itself, show what particular texts ought to be considered part of that scripture.

Equally, your assertion regarding 2 Peter 3:16 that the "obscure passages" called "scripture" refer to Paul's quotations of Old Testament writings rather than his own in general is well, just that - an assertion. And one that seems to me to be likely false - the early church would never have considered the Old Testament "obscure", although Paul's own writings certainly could be considered such by people that weren't familiar to them. Furthermore, he rarely quotes the Old Testament to such as extent that it would form an entire passage in his epistles. Therefore it would see most likely that the passages referred to as scripture were indeed Paul's own writings. Certainly, this is the consensus view I have seem amongst theologians.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have been neither ignorant nor unstable in this case, since you are arguing against something I never said. I have said there is overwhelming evidence in support of the concept that a divinely inspired scripture is part of the Christian faith. I did not say that any of the evidence I gave does, of itself, show what particular texts ought to be considered part of that scripture.

Equally, your assertion regarding 2 Peter 3:16 that the "obscure passages" called "scripture" refer to Paul's quotations of Old Testament writings rather than his own in general is well, just that - an assertion. And one that seems to me to be likely false - the early church would never have considered the Old Testament "obscure", although Paul's own writings certainly could be considered such by people that weren't familiar to them. Furthermore, he rarely quotes the Old Testament to such as extent that it would form an entire passage in his epistles. Therefore it would see most likely that the passages referred to as scripture were indeed Paul's own writings. Certainly, this is the consensus view I have seem amongst theologians.

I am a Theologian who agrees with Sigurd!

[Sigurd]

Regarding telling self-identifying Christians that they are not really Christians, that is not Pharasaic if they do not hold to core Christian beliefs (minor points of doctrine is another matter). We can discuss who is right, but we can't both be right.

You don't think a Pentacostal telling a Baptist that he is not Christian for not speaking in tongues is Pharasaic? Or any evangelical saying that Mormons are going to Hell? Are they not being condemning towards fellow disciples?
And what is the core Christian beliefs anyway... have you reached a cross-denomination consensus? Or are we still in some obscure trench that have decided on some universal core beliefs.
IF you define core Christian as one who recognize Jesus Christ as his/her saviour, and that it is only through faith in Him that salvation is possible. They worship Him as God and take upon themselves His name and try to follow his example by being charitable... then this label befalls more than those under the evangelical umbrella.

I have been neither ignorant nor unstable in this case, since you are arguing against something I never said. I have said there is overwhelming evidence in support of the concept that a divinely inspired scripture is part of the Christian faith. I did not say that any of the evidence I gave does, of itself, show what particular texts ought to be considered part of that scripture.

Equally, your assertion regarding 2 Peter 3:16 that the "obscure passages" called "scripture" refer to Paul's quotations of Old Testament writings rather than his own in general is well, just that - an assertion. And one that seems to me to be likely false - the early church would never have considered the Old Testament "obscure", although Paul's own writings certainly could be considered such by people that weren't familiar to them. Furthermore, he rarely quotes the Old Testament to such as extent that it would form an entire passage in his epistles. Therefore it would see most likely that the passages referred to as scripture were indeed Paul's own writings. Certainly, this is the consensus view I have seem amongst theologians.

Paul did indeed quote scripture in his letters, and as you say they were not referenced and was not complete, hence obscure passages. But you can't say he never quoted whole passages of scripture as the canon does not contain all his letters. Peter does indicate that these letters circulated in the early church (if it was indeed Peter who wrote 2 Peter and not some obscure church Father in the 2nd century Gnostic influenced church), but there are no index over Pauline letters. And before any of you tell me ad nauseam of a closed canon, let me direct you to the following passages:

In my letter I wrote that you must have nothing to do with loose livers* [sic]. I was not, of course, referring to pagans who lead loose lives or are grabbers and swindlers or idolaters. To avoid them you would have to get right out of the world.
(1 Cor 5:9-10)

It was by a revelation that his secret was made known to me. I have already written a brief account of this, and by reading it you may perceive that I understand the secret of Christ.
(Eph 3:3-4)

And when this letter is read among you, see that it is also read to the congregation at Laodicea, and that you in return read the one from Laodicea.
(Col 4:16)

*as written

So we have a missing letter to the Corinthians, a letter that was sent before the first letter to Corinth. There should also be another letter to the Ephesians and a letter to Laodicea. Maybe there are more..?

[Rhyfelwyr]

You don't think a Pentacostal telling a Baptist that he is not Christian for not speaking in tongues is Pharasaic? Or any evangelical saying that Mormons are going to Hell? Are they not being condemning towards fellow disciples?
And what is the core Christian beliefs anyway... have you reached a cross-denomination consensus? Or are we still in some obscure trench that have decided on some universal core beliefs.

You keep prodding me over the particulars here but why should I even need to answer that?

Any faith, any belief system is dependent upon a certain set of beliefs, certain interpretations of texts or the world around them - without them they have no beliefs, and would make for an empty and meaningless body of believers.

You can quibble over whether some groups are too rigid in excluding others for differing from them in the above regards - but ultimately you have to acknowledge that this exclusion has to occur on some level.

Do you feel that there are no core Christian beliefs based on your understanding of the scriptures?

IF you define core Christian as one who recognize Jesus Christ as his/her saviour, and that it is only through faith in Him that salvation is possible. They worship Him as God and take upon themselves His name and try to follow his example by being charitable... then this label befalls more than those under the evangelical umbrella.

Indeed it does, you said that as if you thought I reckoned otherwise.

Paul did indeed quote scripture in his letters, and as you say they were not referenced and was not complete, hence obscure passages. But you can't say he never quoted whole passages of scripture as the canon does not contain all his letters. Peter does indicate that these letters circulated in the early church (if it was indeed Peter who wrote 2 Peter and not some obscure church Father in the 2nd century Gnostic influenced church), but there are no index over Pauline letters.

Regarding the "obscure passages" issue - as I said, Old Testament excerpts would never have been regarded as obscure, neither were they used extensively enough to form entire passages - so they were neither obscure nor passages!

As for being unable to say he never quotes entire passages because we don't have all his letters - maybe I can't but I can certainly say that it is most likely he did not, unless they differed radically from all his writings that we do have - and to think this would be baseless.

And before any of you tell me ad nauseam of a closed canon, let me direct you to the following passages:

In my letter I wrote that you must have nothing to do with loose livers* [sic]. I was not, of course, referring to pagans who lead loose lives or are grabbers and swindlers or idolaters. To avoid them you would have to get right out of the world.
(1 Cor 5:9-10)

It was by a revelation that his secret was made known to me. I have already written a brief account of this, and by reading it you may perceive that I understand the secret of Christ.
(Eph 3:3-4)

And when this letter is read among you, see that it is also read to the congregation at Laodicea, and that you in return read the one from Laodicea.
(Col 4:16)

*as written

So we have a missing letter to the Corinthians, a letter that was sent before the first letter to Corinth. There should also be another letter to the Ephesians and a letter to Laodicea. Maybe there are more..?

EDIT 2: Sorry, maybe missed your point there.

Anyway, I neither reject the value of revelation outside the scripture, or the idea that other letters from Paul circulated in the early church - they were not necessarily canon though.

EDIT: Oh and Philipvs, you don't count!