Results 1 to 30 of 379

Thread: responding to common objections to bible

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11

    Default Re: responding to common objections to bible

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    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?.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    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?.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
    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.
    Last edited by total relism; 05-07-2013 at 17:17.
    “Its been said that when human beings stop believing in god they believe in nothing. The truth is much worse, they believe in anything.” Malcolm maggeridge

    The simple believes every word: but the prudent man looks well to his going. Proverbs -14.15
    The first to present his case seems right,till another comes forward and questions him -Proverbs 18.17

    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    Genesis 1.1

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO