| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/04/2013 08:41:43 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by james_so:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... I just find too many times it was something he heard from somebody a long time ago with no verification. |
Kind of like the bible then.. |
Hehe. I can disagree, but still see the wit in the reply. ;) |
|
|
|
02/04/2013 09:04:56 PM · #52 |
| It does bring up interesting points about other writings, however. What about the recovery work that they've been doing for years, where the number of the beast actually is a different number? |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 12:17:27 AM · #53 |
"The number of the beast" it reads hexakosiai deka hex (lit. six hundred sixteen) it is one of the most famous readings of the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus
The greatest issue I have with a word for word reading of any scripture, is the fact that it has been transcribed and translated over and over by humans and we all know people make mistakes. To err is human, to forgive divine. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 12:46:35 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Just because the Dead Sea Scrolls are old does not make them Scripture. |
Let me ask YOU, what DOES make a particular writing "scriptural" or "canonical", and what is the difference between those terms? Just to flesh it out... |
Scripture and Canonical isn't really different. (At least in my eyes... A non-Catholic Christian might debate that)
To the more relevant question of "What DOES make a particular writing Scriptural" is that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, or put another way, that they were written by God using human authors. |
I ask this because the Bible, or at least the New Testament, was compiled by the Catholic Church, and it is younger than the Church. At the time of compilation, of course, the Catholic Church was *the* Christian Church. In any case, there was a HUGE amount of material circulating out there, in those days, and a lot of work went into winnowing down to the 27 "books" that became the New Testament.
Unanswered is the question of HOW the church authorities determined which of these often conflicting materials/stories/books were "spiritual", that is true and inspired by God, and which were false. A realistic scholar might be forgiven for seeing evidence of a certain political sensibility thoroughly informing this drive towards orthodoxy...
Message edited by author 2013-02-05 00:47:17. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 01:05:51 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Just because the Dead Sea Scrolls are old does not make them Scripture. |
Let me ask YOU, what DOES make a particular writing "scriptural" or "canonical", and what is the difference between those terms? Just to flesh it out... |
Scripture and Canonical isn't really different. (At least in my eyes... A non-Catholic Christian might debate that)
To the more relevent question of "What DOES make a particular writing Scriptural" is that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, or put another way, that they were written by God using human authors.
And to the good Doctor, yeah, I know. Everyone lumps everything written 1800 years ago and not in the Bible as being "the Dead Sea Scrolls"... I think he's refering to the book of Barnabus, a Gnostic book from around the 2nd century. I'm guilty of not correcting folks when they do that because it tends to sidetrack the more important issues. I probably am doing them a disservice... Oh well... |
i believe he's referring to the gospel of thomas from Nag Hammadi, not the dead sea scrolls.
(77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
more specifically, he's thinking of the movie Stigmata, with Patricia Arquette, who gets possessed by Thomas and almost becomes an English muffin. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 01:34:14 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
more specifically, he's thinking of the movie Stigmata, with Patricia Arquette, who gets possessed by Thomas and almost becomes an English muffin. |
REALLY enjoyed that movie. One of my definate favorites. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 02:02:14 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I ask this because the Bible, or at least the New Testament, was compiled by the Catholic Church, and it is younger than the Church. At the time of compilation, of course, the Catholic Church was *the* Christian Church. In any case, there was a HUGE amount of material circulating out there, in those days, and a lot of work went into winnowing down to the 27 "books" that became the New Testament.
Unanswered is the question of HOW the church authorities determined which of these often conflicting materials/stories/books were "spiritual", that is true and inspired by God, and which were false. A realistic scholar might be forgiven for seeing evidence of a certain political sensibility thoroughly informing this drive towards orthodoxy... |
My (imperfect, human) understanding of how certain writings were choosen and others discarded is that the early Church leaders were inspired to collect the writings and willow out the grain from the weeds. In fact one of the parables of Jesus speaks of this. Satan was not an idle bystander during the early days of the Church (nor is he very idle (or is it idol?) today). Many movements arose that were simply con jobs, corrupting the Word. I believe the specific movement that led the Church to seek inspiration on which writings constituted Scripture was the Gnostic movement in the late 2nd and early 3rd centuries. Over the course of several decades the Church leaders prayed and discussed the matter and came up with what we (Catholics) refer to as Scripture. During the Reformation, Martin Luther felt he was inspired to remove 7 "books" from Scripture. My studies inspire me to believe he was mistaken, but that's a whole different thread (likely on a whole different forum :) ) ...
So I guess "my" short answer is that the writings choosen to be "Scripture" or "the Inspired Word of God" were choosen the same way they were written. God inspired humans to collect them. Scripture tells us that Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church, and that (like all of His Promises) was a Promise kept.
It's not lost on me that it's a hard pill to swallow if you don't believe that Scripture is Inspired by God that I believe it was inspired because Scripture says so... I guess I believe it because just like Moses was inspired to start writing It, I was inspired to start reading It. I won't even try to explain what that kind of Inspiration is like. It defies words... If you really want to know what it's like to be moved and inspired by God, I can only give one word of advice... Pray
God bless you all wherever you are on your journey and please know I'm sincere when I say that this entire community is in my prayers.
Oh! A quick PS ~ Anyone that gives serious study time to Scripture can tell you that "these often conflicting materials/stories/books" never conflict. Scripture is consistant. The conflicts arise in the reader. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 02:11:04 AM · #58 |
I know the text Don, but we can see it doesn't really talk about the church unless you mash it together with other passages. (Which I believe was done in the movie.)
Robert, I think you are somewhat misled if you have the impression the original council to determine the canon of the New Testament chose between all these manuscripts with the view that they were equally likely to be inspired by God. The first council to affirm the canon of the NT used the list that had likely been used (with only minor dispute) already for 200 years. The purpose of the council was not necessarily to pick and choose what would go in the NT, but to put an official approval of what was already there.
I'm sure 2000 years later it feels very loosey goosey, but if you believe in God you can believe in His providence to see things come through. If you don't beliee in God, then what does it matter? ;) |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 02:15:59 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm sure 2000 years later it feels very loosey goosey, but if you believe in God you can believe in His providence to see things come through. If you don't beliee in God, then what does it matter? ;) |
hehehe... Well said... Amen |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 04:11:31 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
but to put an official approval of what was already there. |
So would that not mean that the New Testament was an accretion of the remaining texts that survived 300 or so years after the last of the included stories were first written down, with an uncertain number of gospels lost, and many early works which were accepted as gospel and later stricken. When a person of faith puts forward that the Bible is the "Infallible Word of God" it belies the rough editing of those early scholars. To channel all of the Divine Being's message for man through a single text, truncated, translated and hand copied, with marginalia filtering to text, it is hard to imagine such a work coming through a centuries long game of "telephone" with perfect accuracy. You may wish to ascribe a divine perfection to that work, but history belies that perfection. New pieces of the puzzle keep turning up.
There are those of us who believe in the message of Christ, who do not believe that every word of the King James Bible is literally true. There are also those who cherry pick scripture to guide their hand in legislating morality in our country, finding phrases of Leviticus to back their opinions while sliding past whole parts of Matthew.
Message edited by author 2013-02-05 04:12:48. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 07:44:18 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by mike_311:
its always been about the church. why do you think some of the dead sea scrolls were never acknowledges as part of the bible, especially those that talk about the supposed teachings of Jesus as saying you don't need the church, any place can be your church.
. |
Hehe. I can't let this go. Can you provide the name of the scroll and the text of your quote for us Mike? |
after doing some research it appears i was misguided on the dead seas scrolls i have not been able to find any credible sources to back up my statement.
i humbly rescind my statement.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 09:08:34 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
but to put an official approval of what was already there. |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So would that not mean that the New Testament was an accretion of the remaining texts that survived 300 or so years after the last of the included stories were first written down, with an uncertain number of gospels lost, and many early works which were accepted as gospel and later stricken. When a person of faith puts forward that the Bible is the "Infallible Word of God" it belies the rough editing of those early scholars. To channel all of the Divine Being's message for man through a single text, truncated, translated and hand copied, with marginalia filtering to text, it is hard to imagine such a work coming through a centuries long game of "telephone" with perfect accuracy. You may wish to ascribe a divine perfection to that work, but history belies that perfection. New pieces of the puzzle keep turning up. |
The only thing I ask of believers is that they look at, and acknowledge that these points are a very real part of their history. As soon as people start that "The Bible is the infallible Word" I'm pretty much done with them.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
There are those of us who believe in the message of Christ, who do not believe that every word of the King James Bible is literally true. There are also those who cherry pick scripture to guide their hand in legislating morality in our country, finding phrases of Leviticus to back their opinions while sliding past whole parts of Matthew. |
Amen, brother!
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 09:11:39 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Oh! A quick PS ~ Anyone that gives serious study time to Scripture can tell you that "these often conflicting materials/stories/books" never conflict. Scripture is consistant. The conflicts arise in the reader. |
A statement such as this kind of smacks of already condemning anyone who would question the veracity of scripture.
That's a far from realistic stance.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 09:20:22 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by myqyl:
Oh! A quick PS ~ Anyone that gives serious study time to Scripture can tell you that "these often conflicting materials/stories/books" never conflict. Scripture is consistant. The conflicts arise in the reader. |
A statement such as this kind of smacks of already condemning anyone who would question the veracity of scripture.
That's a far from realistic stance. |
What amazes me is that people can actually buy into such a line of logic... Jedi Jesus mind tricks perhaps. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 09:22:25 AM · #65 |
I want to touch once more on the annulment thing.....a friend of my GF divorced about ten years ago after a bitter fight. It was the usual things.......each side wanted to be treated fairly, and the four kids needed to be provided for in a responsible manner. there were multiple properties in the family asset pool, and nobody wanted to give an inch.
A couple of years ago, the ex-husband decided he wanted to remarry......and in the church. He's Catholic, and through the annulment process, he was permitted to do so, and he is now married.
Here is where I start to get confused.....I picked this short definition from a Catholic website:
Annulment says you were never truly married in the first place. Something necessary for a valid marriage was missing. Annulment is a matter of Church law.
Okay......what about the four kids? Do they not exist any more? They were baptized.....does this mean that the baptisms never happened?
This seems so heinous to me.......how does this make any sense whatsoever? These kids are basically being told that their father considers them non-existent.
FWIW, the children, who are all grown BTW, are appalled.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 09:44:01 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I want to touch once more on the annulment thing.....a friend of my GF divorced about ten years ago after a bitter fight. It was the usual things.......each side wanted to be treated fairly, and the four kids needed to be provided for in a responsible manner. there were multiple properties in the family asset pool, and nobody wanted to give an inch.
A couple of years ago, the ex-husband decided he wanted to remarry......and in the church. He's Catholic, and through the annulment process, he was permitted to do so, and he is now married.
Here is where I start to get confused.....I picked this short definition from a Catholic website:
Annulment says you were never truly married in the first place. Something necessary for a valid marriage was missing. Annulment is a matter of Church law.
Okay......what about the four kids? Do they not exist any more? They were baptized.....does this mean that the baptisms never happened?
This seems so heinous to me.......how does this make any sense whatsoever? These kids are basically being told that their father considers them non-existent.
FWIW, the children, who are all grown BTW, are appalled. |
Sounds like what you are saying is, if the church says it, it becomes so. How much did this little number run him by the way? Or were they kind enough to bastardize his children for free?
Ah the infinite power of the mind to create its own reality... |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 10:06:09 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I want to touch once more on the annulment thing.....a friend of my GF divorced about ten years ago after a bitter fight. It was the usual things.......each side wanted to be treated fairly, and the four kids needed to be provided for in a responsible manner. there were multiple properties in the family asset pool, and nobody wanted to give an inch.
A couple of years ago, the ex-husband decided he wanted to remarry......and in the church. He's Catholic, and through the annulment process, he was permitted to do so, and he is now married.
Here is where I start to get confused.....I picked this short definition from a Catholic website:
Annulment says you were never truly married in the first place. Something necessary for a valid marriage was missing. Annulment is a matter of Church law.
Okay......what about the four kids? Do they not exist any more? They were baptized.....does this mean that the baptisms never happened?
This seems so heinous to me.......how does this make any sense whatsoever? These kids are basically being told that their father considers them non-existent.
FWIW, the children, who are all grown BTW, are appalled. |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Sounds like what you are saying is, if the church says it, it becomes so. How much did this little number run him by the way? Or were they kind enough to bastardize his children for free?
Ah the infinite power of the mind to create its own reality... |
*I'm* not saying it......as I understand it, the church is. That's what I don't get. To me, it doesn't mean that the kids were born out of wedlock, they're kind of stating the kids don't exist. If the marriage never happened, then they couldn't possibly be baptized, could they?
This just seems so screwed up to me.
The payoff was a huge donation for a building, BTW.....
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 10:06:14 AM · #68 |
I don't really have an issue with marriage laws.
when you get married two thing happen your marriage is recognized by government and your marriage is recognized by the church if you belong to one.
the great thing about Christianity is you have a choice about how strict you wan your life to be. there are many denominations and now no-denomination churches of Christianity.
pick one with rules you can live with. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 10:09:38 AM · #69 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I want to touch once more on the annulment thing.....a friend of my GF divorced about ten years ago after a bitter fight. It was the usual things.......each side wanted to be treated fairly, and the four kids needed to be provided for in a responsible manner. there were multiple properties in the family asset pool, and nobody wanted to give an inch.
A couple of years ago, the ex-husband decided he wanted to remarry......and in the church. He's Catholic, and through the annulment process, he was permitted to do so, and he is now married.
Here is where I start to get confused.....I picked this short definition from a Catholic website:
Annulment says you were never truly married in the first place. Something necessary for a valid marriage was missing. Annulment is a matter of Church law.
Okay......what about the four kids? Do they not exist any more? They were baptized.....does this mean that the baptisms never happened?
This seems so heinous to me.......how does this make any sense whatsoever? These kids are basically being told that their father considers them non-existent.
FWIW, the children, who are all grown BTW, are appalled. |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Sounds like what you are saying is, if the church says it, it becomes so. How much did this little number run him by the way? Or were they kind enough to bastardize his children for free?
Ah the infinite power of the mind to create its own reality... |
*I'm* not saying it......as I understand it, the church is. That's what I don't get. To me, it doesn't mean that the kids were born out of wedlock, they're kind of stating the kids don't exist. If the marriage never happened, then they couldn't possibly be baptized, could they?
This just seems so screwed up to me.
The payoff was a huge donation for a building, BTW..... |
the church is trying to stay relevant, it realizes its losing followers and many folks are breaking steadfast rules (like divorce) all the time, so instead of kicking out its core, its evolving to maintain its place.
it just reinforces that fact that the churches are more about themselves than what the represent.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 10:11:38 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
but to put an official???????? (divinely inspired I presume?) approval of what was already there. |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
So would that not mean that the New Testament was an accretion of the remaining texts that survived 300 or so years after the last of the included stories were first written down, with an uncertain number of gospels lost, and many early works which were accepted as gospel and later stricken. When a person of faith puts forward that the Bible is the "Infallible Word of God" it belies the rough editing of those early scholars. To channel all of the Divine Being's message for man through a single text, truncated, translated and hand copied, with marginalia filtering to text, it is hard to imagine such a work coming through a centuries long game of "telephone" with perfect accuracy. You may wish to ascribe a divine perfection to that work, but history belies that perfection. New pieces of the puzzle keep turning up. |
The only thing I ask of believers is that they look at, and acknowledge that these points are a very real part of their history. As soon as people start that "The Bible is the infallible Word" I'm pretty much done with them.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
There are those of us who believe in the message of Christ, who do not believe that every word of the King James Bible is literally true. There are also those who cherry pick scripture to guide their hand in legislating morality in our country, finding phrases of Leviticus to back their opinions while sliding past whole parts of Matthew. |
Amen, brother! |
Just because people don't take the bible literally and/or belive that it was "divinely" inspired, does not mean they do not believe in God.
Message edited by author 2013-02-05 10:13:09. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 10:13:13 AM · #71 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
the church is trying to stay relevant, it realizes its losing followers and many folks are breaking steadfast rules (like divorce) all the time, so instead of kicking out its core, its evolving to maintain its place.
|
Something tells me my GF's friend's kids don't feel the church is very relevant or evolved......
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 10:24:17 AM · #72 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I want to touch once more on the annulment thing.....a friend of my GF divorced about ten years ago after a bitter fight. It was the usual things.......each side wanted to be treated fairly, and the four kids needed to be provided for in a responsible manner. there were multiple properties in the family asset pool, and nobody wanted to give an inch.
A couple of years ago, the ex-husband decided he wanted to remarry......and in the church. He's Catholic, and through the annulment process, he was permitted to do so, and he is now married.
Here is where I start to get confused.....I picked this short definition from a Catholic website:
Annulment says you were never truly married in the first place. Something necessary for a valid marriage was missing. Annulment is a matter of Church law.
Okay......what about the four kids? Do they not exist any more? They were baptized.....does this mean that the baptisms never happened?
This seems so heinous to me.......how does this make any sense whatsoever? These kids are basically being told that their father considers them non-existent.
FWIW, the children, who are all grown BTW, are appalled. |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Sounds like what you are saying is, if the church says it, it becomes so. How much did this little number run him by the way? Or were they kind enough to bastardize his children for free?
Ah the infinite power of the mind to create its own reality... |
*I'm* not saying it......as I understand it, the church is. That's what I don't get. To me, it doesn't mean that the kids were born out of wedlock, they're kind of stating the kids don't exist. If the marriage never happened, then they couldn't possibly be baptized, could they?
This just seems so screwed up to me.
The payoff was a huge donation for a building, BTW..... |
Oh no, sorry for the misunderstanding. I know it's not your opinion, I was just summarizing my view of your story. ;)
Huge donations move mountains... wait... that's not the quote is it? ;) |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 10:35:56 AM · #73 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
[quote=DrAchoo]..., it is hard to imagine such a work coming through a centuries long game of "telephone" with perfect accuracy. You may wish to ascribe a divine perfection to that work, but history belies that perfection. New pieces of the puzzle keep turning up.
. |
I think we've been down this road before Brennan, but I don't think an informed view of how we derive modern translations of the Bible includes analogies to "telephone". We certainly know transcription errors occur. We can see them quite clearly because we have such an embarrassment of riches of manuscripts. The whole field of literary criticism arose to answer exactly this question (what did the original manuscripts actually say). As new pieces of information come up, adjustments are made (if necessary), but these adjustments have always amounted to tiny brushstrokes on a painting. The subject of the painting never changes. |
|
|
|
02/05/2013 10:37:56 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
*I'm* not saying it......as I understand it, the church is. That's what I don't get. To me, it doesn't mean that the kids were born out of wedlock, they're kind of stating the kids don't exist. If the marriage never happened, then they couldn't possibly be baptized, could they?
This just seems so screwed up to me.
The payoff was a huge donation for a building, BTW..... |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Oh no, sorry for the misunderstanding. I know it's not your opinion, I was just summarizing my view of your story. ;)
Huge donations move mountains... wait... that's not the quote is it? ;) |
I'm actually hoping that someone Catholic, or even who knows Catholicism, will weigh in and explain to me how this would be reconciled. There has to be someone who loses big the way I understand it now.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2013 10:43:45 AM · #75 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
..., it is hard to imagine such a work coming through a centuries long game of "telephone" with perfect accuracy. You may wish to ascribe a divine perfection to that work, but history belies that perfection. New pieces of the puzzle keep turning up. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think we've been down this road before Brennan, but I don't think an informed view of how we derive modern translations of the Bible includes analogies to "telephone". We certainly know transcription errors occur. We can see them quite clearly because we have such an embarrassment of riches of manuscripts. The whole field of literary criticism arose to answer exactly this question (what did the original manuscripts actually say). As new pieces of information come up, adjustments are made (if necessary), but these adjustments have always amounted to tiny brushstrokes on a painting. The subject of the painting never changes. |
That sounds like whatever you're alluding to kind of means nobody would want to rock the boat..... what's to say that these supposed tiny brushstrokes are so tiny?
I've put forth before the idea that the history and times weren't conducive to accuracy, not to mention the hand of man has been involved since the beginning......good ol' fallible man.
|
|
