A critical study of the Bible

[TER]

Yes, but the Bible wasn't written as a collective. Each book was independently written. Christians starting putting the books into codexs, and of course, the early Christian fathers debated what books were considered authentic and what books were not to be trusted. Clement didn't trust the scriptures over oral tradition. What "church" are you referring to? Who is the "mind" of the Church?

The Church is the Body of Christ. There is One Church as there is One Body of Christ. There are namely three churches which are Apostolic (actually 4 if you add in Anglicanism which is really a branch off of Roman Catholicism): the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church. At one time and for several centuries, all these three churches were one and the identifiable Universal Church and was called the 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church'. This is an indisputable historical fact. Due to schisms (largely due to theological differences), they have branched off into the three churches listed above, with each claiming to be the True Church. I am of the belief that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the True Church just as Maximus would probably say that the Roman Catholic Church in the True Church. In actuality, the similarities between these three churches (in terms of theological beliefs and doctrines of faith) are much more similar than they are different (the differences actually being very minimal, but also very significant, ex: Papal Supremacy), and all three would maintain that the Scriptures are correctly interpreted within the 'mind' of the Church and not up to personal interpretation since personal interpretation can lead one into misunderstandings and possible heresy.

 

[jmdrake]

Before I continue with some observations of the scriptures that I would like to discuss, I wanted to ask those of you who believe that the Bible in its entirety was written by G-d, in other words "G-d breathed, word for word", how do you handle a passage that you read that appears to contradict other scriptures? Do you automatically reason with yourself why their is an apparent discrepancy, or do you do research to find out the answers? Do you only turn to Christian authorities on the matter, or do you also investigate worldly opinions? Witnesses are not allowed to read non-witness material. They must turn to the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to get answers to any questions. That is the reason I am asking this question.

Well I guess that leaves me out. I believe the entire Bible was inspired by God, but I don't think it was "breathed word for word". Some discrepancies I don't worry about. (The death of Judas for example). However if there is a discrepancy that leads to a doctrinal difference I dig deeper. I will read commentaries, parallel passages, different Bible versions etc. And I pray for understanding.

 

[YumYum]

The Church is the Body of Christ. There is One Church as there is One Body of Christ. There are namely three churches which are Apostolic (actually 4 if you add in Anglicanism which is really a branch off of Roman Catholicism): the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Oriental Orthodox Church. At one time and for several centuries, all these three churches were one and the identifiable Universal Church and was called the 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church'. This is an indisputable historical fact. Due to schisms (largely due to theological differences), they have branched off into the three churches listed above, with each claiming to be the True Church. I am of the belief that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the True Church just as Maximus would probably say that the Roman Catholic Church in the True Church. In actuality, the similarities between these three churches (in terms of theological beliefs and doctrines of faith) are much more similar than they are different (the differences actually being very minimal, but also very significant, ex: Papal Supremacy), and all three would maintain that the Scriptures are correctly interpreted within the 'mind' of the Church and not up to personal interpretation since personal interpretation can lead one into misunderstandings and possible heresy.

If I pray to Jesus for wisdom and understanding, do I get that wisdom from Him? I can go to another man and get his opinion, which could be very valuable and even correct, but isn't having a personal relationship with Jesus mean that He works on my heart and gives me understanding so that I can use my conscience? I think my concern is with this "man worshiping man" thing that is so predominant in Christianity.

As far as interpretation, let's say that I, YumYum, discover something that has never been realized before in the scriptures, and all of my peers agree that I am 100%, absolutely correct. Now what do I do? Do I have to go before a committee before I can preach about what I have discovered? Do I have to have man's approval before I can believe a certain way after I have given much thought and prayer on a particular subject? And these men that I must obey, what credentials do they have that I should follow them?

 

[YumYum]

Well I guess that leaves me out. I believe the entire Bible was inspired by God, but I don't think it was "breathed word for word". Some discrepancies I don't worry about. (The death of Judas for example). However if there is a discrepancy that leads to a doctrinal difference I dig deeper. I will read commentaries, parallel passages, different Bible versions etc. And I pray for understanding.

I don't believe G-d wrote the Bible, but He very well may have inspired the authors to write the books. Here is why. Notice Luke: 1-4:

" 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

If Holy Spirit dictated to Luke what to write, why did he have to "carefully investigate everything from the beginning"? That would mean that he didn't trust what Holy Spirit told him, so he had to go out and interview people just to make sure Holy Spirit was telling the truth. No, he investigated to make sure he got the correct information, just as any good investigative journalist would do. If more Christians could see this and realize that the Bible is not infallible, more atheists would come to Jesus, IMO.

 

[TER]

If I pray to Jesus for wisdom and understanding, do I get that wisdom from Him? I can go to another man and get his opinion, which could be very valuable and even correct, but isn't having a personal relationship with Jesus mean that He works on my heart and gives me understanding so that I can use my conscience? I think my concern is with this "man worshiping man" thing that is so predominant in Christianity.

As far as interpretation, let's say that I, YumYum, discover something that has never been realized before in the scriptures, and all of my peers agree that I am 100%, absolutely correct. Now what do I do? Do I have to go before a committee before I can preach about what I have discovered? Do I have to have man's approval before I can believe a certain way after I have given much thought and prayer on a particular subject? And these men that I must obey, what credentials do they have that I should follow them?

I will respond to you Yumyum when I get back from a meeting.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't believe G-d wrote the Bible, but He very well may have inspired the authors to write the books. Here is why. Notice Luke: 1-4:

" 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

If Holy Spirit dictated to Luke what to write, why did he have to "carefully investigate everything from the beginning"? That would mean that he didn't trust what Holy Spirit told him, so he had to go out and interview people just to make sure Holy Spirit was telling the truth. No, he investigated to make sure he got the correct information, just as any good investigative journalist would do. If more Christians could see this and realize that the Bible is not infallible, more atheists would come to Jesus, IMO.

Very good insight! I've read Luke 1 before but never paid attention to this part. Thank you.

 

[idirtify]

the Scriptures are correctly interpreted within the 'mind' of the Church and not up to personal interpretation since personal interpretation can lead one into misunderstandings and possible heresy.

It’s a good thing you don’t view the individual and the government as you do the individual and the church. Instead of advocating that individual liberty be respected and protected by the government, you advocate that individual choice be criticized and controlled by the church. Whereas individual thinking is encouraged under our political system, it appears to be discouraged under your religious system.

 

[Dr.3D]

I don't believe G-d wrote the Bible, but He very well may have inspired the authors to write the books. Here is why. Notice Luke: 1-4:

" 1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

If Holy Spirit dictated to Luke what to write, why did he have to "carefully investigate everything from the beginning"? That would mean that he didn't trust what Holy Spirit told him, so he had to go out and interview people just to make sure Holy Spirit was telling the truth. No, he investigated to make sure he got the correct information, just as any good investigative journalist would do. If more Christians could see this and realize that the Bible is not infallible, more atheists would come to Jesus, IMO.

And another case where independent study of the scriptures was encouraged.

Acts 17:10-11 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Allowing one source of interpretation is also allowing for that interpretation to be incorrect. One should always study the scriptures to be sure what they have been told is true.

For a long, long time, there were some who would not allow the people of the church to even read the scriptures. This of course was used to maintain control of the people rather than let the people understand for themselves what the truth is.

 

[Maximus]

It’s a good thing you don’t view the individual and the government as you do the individual and the church. Instead of advocating that individual liberty be respected and protected by the government, you advocate that individual choice be criticized and controlled by the church. Whereas individual thinking is encouraged under our political system, it appears to be discouraged under your religious system.

Association in a Church is completely voluntary. You are comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Maximus]

And another case where independent study of the scriptures was encouraged.


Allowing one source of interpretation is also allowing for that interpretation to be incorrect. One should always study the scriptures to be sure what they have been told is true.

For a long, long time, there were some who would not allow the people of the church to even read the scriptures. This of course was used to maintain control of the people rather than let the people understand for themselves what the truth is.

Before the invention of the printing press books were hugely expensive, it would take a monk years to copy down a new Bible. Also, the vast majority of populations were illiterate. The Bible is ideally meant to be heard rather than read. St. Paul would write letters to various Churches, which were then read aloud before the Church community. It has nothing to do with control.

 

[TER]

For a long, long time, there were some who would not allow the people of the church to even read the scriptures. This of course was used to maintain control of the people rather than let the people understand for themselves what the truth is.

Source please?

 

[TER]

If I pray to Jesus for wisdom and understanding, do I get that wisdom from Him? I can go to another man and get his opinion, which could be very valuable and even correct, but isn't having a personal relationship with Jesus mean that He works on my heart and gives me understanding so that I can use my conscience? I think my concern is with this "man worshiping man" thing that is so predominant in Christianity.

As far as interpretation, let's say that I, YumYum, discover something that has never been realized before in the scriptures, and all of my peers agree that I am 100%, absolutely correct. Now what do I do? Do I have to go before a committee before I can preach about what I have discovered? Do I have to have man's approval before I can believe a certain way after I have given much thought and prayer on a particular subject? And these men that I must obey, what credentials do they have that I should follow them?

The Church as established by Christ is made up of men and women guided by the Holy Spirit. By their steadfastness in the faith and by their virtuous and exemplary lives, they have been found to be living temples of the Holy Spirit, full of grace and truth, capable of raising the dead (yes, this has happened not only in the pages of Acts, but in the recorded lives of saints) and performing other miracles. After all, Christ said that 'they would do even greater miracles' than the ones they witnessed. He established a Church with a structure, namely bishops, priests and deacons. This is found in the Acts of the Apostles. The laying of the hands is the sacramental method of transferring the grace of God as found in the Acts of the Apostles. This is still the method done today. I can trace my bishop back in time to the very Apostles (in my bishop's case, it would St. Andrew the First Called). There are Christians who find this to be insignificant and irrelevant. I would disagree.

Here are some relevant passages you might want to explore (and I encourage you to read more from these saints). These men are not worshiped (that is hyperbole used by some). These men are respected because they reached heights few have been able to go because of their holy, God-filled lives in Christ.

Ignatius of Antioch

"Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine [i.e., is a heretic], he has no part in the passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

"In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace" (Against Heresies 3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).

"[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place" (ibid., 4:33:7–8).

Cyprian of Carthage

"Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress [a schismatic church] is separated from the promises of the Church, nor will he that forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is an alien, a worldling, and an enemy. He cannot have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 6, 1st ed. [A.D. 251]).

"Let them not think that the way of life or salvation exists for them, if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests, since the Lord says in the book of Deuteronomy: ‘And any man who has the insolence to refuse to listen to the priest or judge, whoever he may be in those days, that man shall die’ [Deut. 17:12]. And then, indeed, they were killed with the sword . . . but now the proud and insolent are killed with the sword of the Spirit, when they are cast out from the Church. For they cannot live outside, since there is only one house of God, and there can be no salvation for anyone except in the Church" (Letters 61[4]:4 [A.D. 253]).

"When we say, ‘Do you believe in eternal life and the remission of sins through the holy Church?’ we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the Church" (ibid., 69[70]:2 [A.D. 253]).

"Peter himself, showing and vindicating the unity, has commanded and warned us that we cannot be saved except by the one only baptism of the one Church. He says, ‘In the ark of Noah a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Similarly, baptism will in like manner save you" [1 Peter 3:20-21]. In how short and spiritual a summary has he set forth the sacrament of unity! In that baptism of the world in which its ancient wickedness was washed away, he who was not in the ark of Noah could not be saved by water. Likewise, neither can he be saved by baptism who has not been baptized in the Church which is established in the unity of the Lord according to the sacrament of the one ark" (ibid., 73[71]:11).

"[O]utside the Church there is no Holy Spirit, sound faith moreover cannot exist, not alone among heretics, but even among those who are established in schism" (Treatise on Rebaptism 10 [A.D. 256]).


Saint Augustine

"He who does not have the church as his mother does not have God as his Father."

 

[Dr.3D]

Source please?

I don't need a source. I was a missionary in Mexico and know for a fact the church there had to give me permission to hand out Bibles to the people of that town.

 

[TER]

I don't need a source. I was a missionary in Mexico and know for a fact the church there had to give me permission to hand out Bibles to the people of that town.

So your anecdotal experience of what happened to you in Mexico somehow translates to the Church not wanting its members to read the bible? I don't know the specifics of what you went through, but it does seem odd. Were they making sure you weren't passing out altered texts or a version they did not feel was a correct translation? I have no idea. But my impression from your comment was that the early Church did not want people to read the scriptures which would be pure folly. If I misunderstood you, then forgive me. I think Maximus took it that way as well.

 

[YumYum]

Very good insight! I've read Luke 1 before but never paid attention to this part. Thank you.

John, you are welcome. I think that my gift might be in helping atheists come to Jesus. You can help me. On this forum, if you and I can have a rational discussion, and show the atheists how Jesus helps us in our lives, I think we can make progress. Many atheists are confused and have the same emotional problems that everybody else has. But they, like you and I, respond to love and kindness. In this, Jesus sets the ultimate example.

I would like to continue this thread for the benefit of the atheists. What do you think of the "synoptic problem". What is your opinion on that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Synoptic_problem

 

[YumYum]

TodaysEpistleReading,

I understand that these men hold an importance place in Christianity. But they are men; imperfect men at that. They have opinions; just like you and I do. Why do I need them when I have Jesus in my heart?

 

[idirtify]

Association in a Church is completely voluntary.

Right. But that’s only because society has recently become civil enough to separate the two. If it weren’t for said separation, religious association would be mandatory and individual liberty would be secondary. And since theocracy is the bulk of our history, I feel it is important to occasionally point out that the nature of religion is still oppressive to individual liberty.

 

[jmdrake]

Source please?

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/vernacularversions.html
1. THE COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE (1229) AND THE COUNCIL OF TARRAGONA (1234) FORBADE THE LAITY TO POSSESS OR READ THE VERNACULAR TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. NO EXCEPTIONS WERE MENTIONED.

The Council of Toulouse used these words: "We prohibit the permission of the books of the Old and New Testament to laymen, except perhaps they might desire to have the Psalter, or some Breviary for the divine service, or the Hours of the blessed Virgin Mary, for devotion; expressly forbidding their having the other parts of the Bible translated into the vulgar tongue" (Allix, Ecclesiastical History, II, p. 213). The declarations of these Councils held power for centuries thereafter.

 

[jmdrake]

John, you are welcome. I think that my gift might be in helping atheists come to Jesus. You can help me. On this forum, if you and I can have a rational discussion, and show the atheists how Jesus helps us in our lives, I think we can make progress. Many atheists are confused and have the same emotional problems that everybody else has. But they, like you and I, respond to love and kindness. In this, Jesus sets the ultimate example.

I would like to continue this thread for the benefit of the atheists. What do you think of the "synoptic problem". What is your opinion on that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Synoptic_problem

I'll be honest. I've never given it much thought until now. My understanding of the problem is that the gospels have similarities that suggest a common source and yet they also have discrepancies? Well from the believers perspective that makes sense. Only Matthew and John actually knew Jesus. Mark and Luke knew people who knew Jesus. I could see Mark and Luke reading Matthew's gospel, then talking to other disciples (perhaps after the death of Matthew?), and finding other interesting information that was either left out or reported from a different perspective. From the links you gave the biggest similarities are between Matthew, Mark and Luke. John seems more independent and that makes sense considering that John could write his own account without needing to refer to Matthew's account. I suppose the skeptic view is that four gospels were written from the same "made up" source, but to what end? And why not make everything sync up perfectly?

 

[TER]

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/vernacularversions.html
1. THE COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE (1229) AND THE COUNCIL OF TARRAGONA (1234) FORBADE THE LAITY TO POSSESS OR READ THE VERNACULAR TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE. NO EXCEPTIONS WERE MENTIONED.

This is a Roman Catholic Council I never heard of (happened after the Great Schism). Perhaps Maximus might be able address this.