Yes but you claimed there are all these inconsistencies so I figured you had an example off the top of your head. I don't even know what you mean about inconsistencies. Every Christian theologian has some differences from the others but as long as they are in agreement on the main doctrines the differences don't really make a difference. But to differ on the basics takes a theologian out of the realm of Christian theology into heresy. I've already said that the main consistent doctrine is that Jesus Christ is God who became incarnate as a man in order to die to pay for the sins of those who believe in Him (sins being transgressions of God's Law, God's Law being summed up in the Ten Commandments). All the heresies have in common their denial of this main doctrine.
That's all it takes to provide a "consistancy" in theological doctrine for you? The various denominations disagree on nearly everything else - the Catholics have
always had some very major differences with modern Protestantism, including the dogma that an intermediary is necessary to gain forgiveness from God, and the near-divinity of Mary. Not to mention
prayers to saints, and the near-divinity of saints and the Pope. Yes, the belief that Jesus is the Son of the Holy Trinity is the core belief, and is shared by nearly all denominations, but if that's all it takes to be "consistant," you have a much different definition than I do.
Have you ever taken a look at Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict? It's a very good apologetic for the Bible. Anyway, I've given you some of my reasons already, my judgment of the integrity of the Biblical writers for instance. The ring of truth of the scriptures is another; and I absolutely do not see any inconsistencies between the Bible and the natural world. And the Gnostics are simply teaching another doctrine from the gospel. It was the people who are defending the Gnostics who made up the stuff about a conflict of interest in selecting the canon, speaking of a conflict of interest. And it's based on what? Only on the fact that the Gnostic stuff was rejected. Of course it was rejected. It's heresy. No conspiracy, no manipulation, no skulduggery. Just the church doing what the church must do, establish true teaching, eliminate false teaching.
My intimations of a conflict of interest are not founded solely on the fact that the Gnostic gospels were dismissed as heresy. I simply see that the theology of the Church Fathers gave rise to an institution whose power and wealth were unrivalled in the world for over a thousand years. I see that the theology of the CHurch Fathers gave rise to an institution that committed horrible atrocities like the Inquisition and forced conversion through torture and murder - as you say, direct violations of the Christian faith. Combined with the fact that I have an entirely different understanding of God given the same Bible and only a small amount of the "heretical" texts, it's enough to give me a reasonable doubt as to whether the Church Fathers were
right. I'm not saying they werein't, just that I have good reason to question.
All that is just the understandable effect of the stories' being recounted so many times, and written accounts intended for a new audience taking some passages from previous accounts, and people's memories focusing on different aspects of the events being described, and in any case, in the end the discrepancies are SO minor considering the overall consistency of the whole. There were probably many versions and fragments of the gospel stories going around, and eventually they sorted down to the ones that became the canon.
Given that the differences in the Gospels were due to failings in memory and different focus on events, how can it be said that another Gospel, like, say, the Gospel of Thomas (just as an example), is
not simply another version of the same events? Everyone has a bias based on preconceived feelings and goals - why are we to trust the truth to the bias of men 1500 years ago?
How is it subjective if they had the testimony of so many from the many churches as I was saying, as well as written treatises and disputations? They didn’t act in a vacuum. Consensus and historical usage are a solid basis for a decision.
If we used that same logic the Protestant revolution would never have happened. It's an appeal to tradition. The Church Fathers had all of that info and tradition to base their decision on, yes, but
were those traditions and writings based on the truth? Just because people have done something for a couple hundred years doesn't mean they are
right. It's still a subjective decision on the part of the Church Fathers when determining
which traditions and testimonies to consider true vs heretical.
The idea that anybody had anything to gain is puzzling. Gain what? Who are you talking about anyway? Some of the Church Fathers wrote during the times of Roman persecution. Simply being a Christian got you fed to the lions for being an atheist who rejected all their pagan deities.
And I'm not necessarily saying that every one of the Fathers had such a conflict of interest.
Really what I'm saying is that it concerns me that the Church Fathers, along with Paul himself, seemed more concerned with starting a successful and dominant religion than actually propagating the truth. It's like a missionary who doesn't care if people's
hearts are turned to God, so long as they
say they believe.
Something about the heretical texts convinces you of what? That they wouldn’t have led to the Inquisition maybe? I really don’t know what you are trying to say. The gospels just as we have them shouldn’t have led to the Inquisition.
I'm saying nothing of the sort, and I agree that the Inquisition was an abomination by the standards set in the accepted Gospels. I AM saying that I see reason to doubt the Fathers' decision to exclude certain texts that still seem to be in step with the teachings of Jesus. I AM saying that the Fathers and Paul seemed to be more concerned with gaining converts than preaching the actual words of Christ.
Not that I can see. Where do you get that idea? Can you quote an argument for that kind of pomp in the church from the early church fathers? I’m not saying there might not be one, I don’t know. I haven’t read all the church fathers, but what I have read is interesting gospel theology.
It'll take a bit of research to figure it out. All I was saying is that the Church Fathers' doctrines gave rise to the Catholic Church. I don't
know if the Catholic CHurch was anything resembling what they intended, only that it's what they
got. I'll see what I can dig up regarding the origins of the office of the Pope and the justifications used for the decadent wealth of Roman Catholicism.
ertainly not since its inception. The first Christians were persecuted by the Roman empire for starters. Waves of persecution martyred them for the first few centuries. Finally Constantine’s becoming a Christian brought relief from the persecutions. I guess I could have elements of the history wrong, I’m no expert but I don’t understand where people get such ideas. Within the next two or three centuries of Constantine’s conversion the Bishop of Rome started making a play to become the head of the whole organization. I mean, it took a while for the church-state organization to get going -- if that’s what you’re referring to, and that had a lot more to do with the political situation than theology, if it had anything at all to do with theology. Europe wasn’t even completely Christianized until around the year 1000.
I wasn't talking about burgeoning Christianity, only the Catholic Church itself - the organized and structured body that came into existance after Constantine. From the moment Constantine made Christianity the Roman state religion, Catholicism was the de facto highest power in the Empire, and it spread even after the fall of Rome.
Really, you are going to have to tell me what doctrine you are talking about. I have NO idea what you mean. My answer as I understand it though is no. How could it? The church fathers developed the gospel of Jesus Christ which is completely at odds with the wealthy powerful church the Roman church became. I’m sure there are many factors that explain it but early doctrine, I don't see how.
All I know, Faith, is that the Catholic Church was the organized body that rose from the work of the Church Fathers. I don't know if Catholicism was their intent, with all of its pomp and wealth and ceremony, but it's what they
got. It's enough to give me reasonable doubt as to their intentions and priorities.
They deny the deity of Christ, which is fundamental to the basic doctrine of the true church and can be shown in scripture but it’s a long study.
Not necessarily. Witnesses don't deny the divinity of Christ. Even Mormons don't really - they simply have a wildly different idea of the "origins" of God and His son. He is still of divine origin in their view, but I'll agree that they step more into polytheism rather than a belief in One God. They seperate the Trinity more than mainstream Christianity.
The kingdom of God is only present in His believers, not everything and everywhere until Jesus returns. God Himself is everywhere, but His kingdom refers to His rule, and as long as there is opposition to His rule His kingdom has not yet fully come. That is why we pray Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, because it HASN’T fully come yet.
Technically speaking, if He created everything in the universe and can break physical laws at a whim with no limits on his ability to affect reality or the free will of humans, then everything
is His Kingdom. He DOES rule everything by that standard, and people just don't see it. I just don't see the difference that you do, I suppose.
No I trust the consensus of so many faithful people, AND I understand their arguments and they are convincing. AND they were led by the Holy Spirit, not their own hearts.
What was that passage about coming through the narrow gate? About many trying to enter, but few being called?
Doesn't the Bible specifically say
not to just "go with the flow" and believe just because everyone else does?
quote:
Matthew 7:14
Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
It doesn't sound to me like "because everybody else believes this way" is a good reason for placing unwavering faith in something. The Bible seems to agree with me.
No, we have the testimony of the Church through the centuries, the consensus of its leaders, the reasonableness of their arguments. Dating is meaningless. So there was a Gnostic sect that was contemporary with the early church and its writings happened to get preserved. Means absolutely nothing. Nobody ever denied such sects existed. The early church is full of writings against heresies, plenty of proof they existed.
The problem is who decided they
were heresy, and why. More importantly,
were they right? I can't conceive of going along and believing just becuase other people do. "Becase 100,000 people say so" is not a great reason. Personal experience tells me people are gullible, stupid, and dishonest, and I don;t trust others to make such important decisions
for me.
Again, the fundamental tenet of the True Church is that Jesus Christ is God Himself, the God of the Old Testament, who came in the flesh, incarnate as a man, lived a perfect sinless life and died as a sacrifice for the sins of His followers. Show me where that is in the Gnostic teachings.
I don't know much about the Gnostics themselves - I've simply read Thomas. I also believe that Jesus was the incarnation of God in human form, like an Avatar of sorts. I also believe He came as much for the lessons he taught as to die for the forgiveness of sin.
It takes some soaking in good scriptural preaching I suppose -- to answer how I know. But again, the word Kingdom refers to a realm over which a King reigns so the Kingdom of God refers to the rule and reign of God. God Himself is omnipresent, but not the Kingdom of God. When every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord the Kingdom of God will have come. That will happen when Jesus returns.
One interpretation, yes. Another would be a realm in which the King has absolute control and authority, whether people admit it or not. That would pretty much describe reality if God exists, would it not?
But this is NOT the same thing as saying he *cared* more about that sheep than the others, which is what the Gnostic passage is saying. It is simply saying that a repentant sinner is a special cause for rejoicing. Those who never went astray and don’t need repentance are just as secure in the shepherd’s care. Otherwise you end up with something like: Get as lost as possible, as deep into sin as possible, and then you will be assured of being a special favorite when you repent. And it seems to me I recall that there was in fact a heresy along those lines in the early days.
Difference in translation. It's the same saying, worded slightly differntly. It only takes a different meaning if you read it so strictly, or read it alone.
This is part of the reason I don't like literallism - you can easily take something from the Bible and believe that it says something it was never intended to say. Language is not perfect for communicating ideas, and repeated translations certainly don't help the matter.
I’m glad, but there are a lot of books out there that do the same and a lot more thoroughly. Also, preachers as a class are terrifically busy people who can’t spend the time to answer a long list of doubts and objections. A familiar piece of advice I’ve heard is to sit in the congregation and listen for a year.
Been there, done that. I was raised Christian, after all - I went through Confirmation and spent most of my life going to church every Sunday.
Among the churches I attended (and there were several, my family moved a lot), most simply ignored the wrathful parts of the BIble. THose who didn't seemed to speak of a God who loves His on glory more than His children, and that didn't sit well with me. I can't worship a God who has the universe's biggest ego problem.
There is no scripture outside the Bible. Scripture IS the Bible. And the modern Bible is the same as the ancient Bible anyway.
There
was no ancient Bible! It was a bunch of individual writings! Not all churches had the same ones - some had books not in the Bible, others had an incomplete set, etc. When that line was
written, the Bible had not been assembled! The closest thing was the Torah.
It says it was God-breathed. That means it comes straight from God, therefore of course it is absolutely true. God doesn’t lie. It says Holy men spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. That means they spoke only truth. The Holy Spirit is God and the Holy Spirit doesn’t lie.
And I test this notion by comparing Biblical accoutns of events to provable, observable evidence. Since there are contradictions, the Bible must
not be literally true, so it cannot be the literal Word of God.
It is instead exactly what it seems to be - a really old collection of writings
about God from various eras with different preconceived notions about the nature of God, complete with attempted explanations of the natural world through the supernatural. It's mythology, Faith, but mythology
can and usually
is based on fact, and can always teach a good lesson whether the account of past events is accurate or not.
Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
)
™ Version 4.2