Evidence For The Bible As The Word Of God?

[Scott]

Kuriokaze, I have studied religion for a long time. I never said I studied for years and years and years. I have studied it for as long as I can remember, though.

 

Antlerman, you don't know the meaning of truth. I may be young, but I'm not ignorant of what truth is. All those who hear the voice of Jesus, hear truth.

 

downtoearth, no it's not possible. I didn't become psychotic until waaay later.

 

Antlerman, you also don't know anything about me. So don't begin to think you have why I'm hear all figured out.

[Crunk Bishop]

scott,

 

but you haven't really answered my question....

 

What did the word "scripture" mean to the authors of 2 Timothy and 2 Peter since the document we all call "The Bible" did not yet exist?

 

what is "god's word?"

[Scott]

scott,

 

but you haven't really answered my question....

 

What did the word "scripture" mean to the authors of 2 Timothy and 2 Peter since the document we all call "The Bible" did not yet exist?

 

what is "god's word?"

 

While the Bible wasn't all together yet, they had the OT and that is the Word of God. And the very Scriptures the disciples were writing are also the Word of God. It is all God's complete Word to mankind.

[Crunk Bishop]

but 2 peter 2:10-12 talks about how michael disputed with Satan for the body of moses... a story not in the OT but in the apocryphal text "the assumption of moses..." a book which was rejected.

 

how can "god's word" then refer to spurious sources and still have integrity?

[garrisonjj]

No, Open_Minded, the Bible is the only Word of God.

 

 

 

 

Whoa!!!

 

obviously [/i] they are wrong! [major sarcasm here]

 

How come the fuckin author doesn't appear? Instead basing belief on a book of tales and wishful thinking? Fuck that!

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, you don't know the meaning of truth. I may be young, but I'm not ignorant of what truth is. All those who hear the voice of Jesus, hear truth.

 

Antlerman, you also don't know anything about me. So don't begin to think you have why I'm hear all figured out.

This is fun. I don't know the meaning of truth? Please elaborate? I understand fairly well how perceptions of truth operates in the human experience as frameworks by which we define the bounds of our understanding. Humans think in dualistic terms: this is this, because this is not that. The truth you have is 2000 years out of step with the reality of an educated society.

 

I guess I would say that your understanding of the world at 18 years of age is definetly far behind what it will be when you've lived another 18 years - as an adult. There is a big difference between living 18 years as a child, and living another 18 years as an adult. You're perceptions will in fact change with new information gained from the experience of living in the adult world, and facing adult situtations that task the very core of how you perceive the world. Your tiny little box that you have stuck the world in will of necessity give way to bigger, and broader truths, that if they don't you will find yourself stuck as a child in an adults world.

 

So yes, I understand what truth is. Truth is what work for the individual. My truth at 18 was not my truth at 25, then not my truth at 36, then not my truth at... we'll stop here As much as you don't want to hear this, 18 year olds generally as a whole think they've got it figured out. If you have already moved beyond that and realize things are not so damned clear cut, black and white, and that the world and our understanding of what "truth" is, is much more grey and blurred than what you once believed with great confidence was "the Truth" with a capital T, then you are very atypical for an 18 year old.

 

I'm happy to help focus your gaze by hearing the sound of the voice of reality coming from beyond the close and snug walls of the cardboard box you are stuffing yourself, God and reality inside for your benefit. I shouldn't be so hard on you though, honestly. You haven't developed a vocabularily for life yet, as you have not yet had cause of necessity. You will see what I mean. Hint: Have your perceptions of life changed from when you were 6 years old?

 

Again if you have advanced at light speed beyond all others your age, then I am mistaken. But your vocabulary about life tends to place you with your peers at 18, not ahead of the curve. Don't get me wrong, I don't dismiss you as a person, it just helps me understand where your narrow views are really coming from. You're not ready yet to swim away from the safety of the shallow end of the pool.

[Ouroboros]

but 2 peter 2:10-12 talks about how michael disputed with Satan for the body of moses... a story not in the OT but in the apocryphal text "the assumption of moses..." a book which was rejected.

 

how can "god's word" then refer to spurious sources and still have integrity?

Very good point Crunk. Keep them comming.

 

I really want to hear Scott's explanation to this. Scott, which way is it? Is the Apocrypha the word of God, or is not not? Should we trust the word of men or the vote of men?

[Piprus]

Kuriokaze, I have studied religion for a long time. I never said I studied for years and years and years. I have studied it for as long as I can remember, though.

 

Antlerman, you don't know the meaning of truth. I may be young, but I'm not ignorant of what truth is. All those who hear the voice of Jesus, hear truth.

 

downtoearth, no it's not possible. I didn't become psychotic until waaay later.

 

Antlerman, you also don't know anything about me. So don't begin to think you have why I'm hear all figured out.

 

Scotty-me-boy, responding to your various threads in the Den is getting to be like playing chess with a drunken monkey.

 

Considering some of the remarks you've made, I think you've been handled with courtesy and respect by the members here, perhaps far more than you've earned. But, as I stated on another thread, you're a reactor. You start a thread, and when you get responses, you don't come back with scholarly rebuttal from the brain. Typical of your youth, you instead react from the gut, and not a small part of your ass as well. That is, of course, if you're being genuine in the first place.

 

I'm beginning to think this is just a game with you. Trying to see what it would take to piss off some of us old apostates with your cute little preachiness.

 

I'm not impressed.

[Kuroikaze]

scott,

 

but you haven't really answered my question....

 

What did the word "scripture" mean to the authors of 2 Timothy and 2 Peter since the document we all call "The Bible" did not yet exist?

 

what is "god's word?"

 

While the Bible wasn't all together yet, they had the OT and that is the Word of God. And the very Scriptures the disciples were writing are also the Word of God. It is all God's complete Word to mankind.

 

*sigh* You do realize this doesn't answer his question don't you? Do you happen to know that people as late as Martin Luther argued over what books should be included as the inspired word of god? Luther wanted to removed Revelation, Jude, and, I believe Hebrews as well.

 

In the first 400 years of the christian church they were constantly arguing over which books were inspired. Many early church fathers including Iraenus believed that "the Shepard of Hermas" should be included in the canon. Many church fathers thought that 2nd Peter, Hebrews, 1,2 Timothy and more should not be included in the canon because they doubted the authorship. Interistingly enough these are the exact same books that modern scholars believe have doubtful authorship.

 

The last book of the NT to be written was 2nd Peter (probably about 150 C.E.) At that time the argument over what books were inspired was still going strong. (The first time the current canon we use was mentioned by any church father was in the mid 4th century)

 

The very debate goes to the core of how the church fathers picked the books that went into the NT...they beat out the competing versions of christianity (the Marcenonites, Ebonites, Gnostics) and called the books these groups followed heritical.

 

The version of christianity we have was influenced primaraly by Pauline theology, its clear if you read between the lines of Pauls letters that he did not get along well with the apostles who supposedly knew Jesus. Peter, it seems, partucularly hated Paul, as Paul essentally threw away his Jewish heritage and stopped obeying any of the Jewish laws. To the Ebonite Christians PAUL was the heretic.

[roman]

Isn't it true that the remnants of the Essene Community considered Paul a False Messiah? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

[Kuroikaze]

Isn't it true that the remnants of the Essene Community considered Paul a False Messiah? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

 

I've never heard that before, however, I'll admit my knowledge of the Essenes is limited, so it IS possible, The Essenes were probably killed helping the Zealots in the uprising in 70 C.E. so they certainly could have known who Paul was.

 

It seems however, that their knowledge of him would have been limited since he wasn't particullary welcome in Israel, and the Essenes tended to eschew contact with society, for that reason I find it unlikely that they thought much about Paul.

 

If you happen upon the information you read pass it along to me, because I'd be interested in reading it.

[roman]

Isn't it true that the remnants of the Essene Community considered Paul a False Messiah? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

 

I've never heard that before, however, I'll admit my knowledge of the Essenes is limited, so it IS possible, The Essenes were probably killed helping the Zealots in the uprising in 70 C.E. so they certainly could have known who Paul was.

 

It seems however, that their knowledge of him would have been limited since he wasn't particullary welcome in Israel, and the Essenes tended to eschew contact with society, for that reason I find it unlikely that they thought much about Paul.

 

If you happen upon the information you read pass it along to me, because I'd be interested in reading it.

And isn't it also true that there was at least one Zealot amongst The Twelve?

[Kuroikaze]

 

And isn't it also true that there was at least one Zealot amongst The Twelve?

 

I think Peter was supposed to be a Zealot...he attacked one of the guards with a sword when they came to arest Jesus. I believe I've read that Zealots were known for always carring swords in case the revolution started.

[Ouroboros]

Isn't it true that the remnants of the Essene Community considered Paul a False Messiah? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

It's possible that the early Essenes did. I know that many of the Essenes today do.

 

http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm

[LostOrFound]

Isn't it true that the remnants of the Essene Community considered Paul a False Messiah? I'm sure I read that somewhere.

It's possible that the early Essenes did. I know that many of the Essenes today do.

 

http://www.essene.org/Yahowshua_or_Paul.htm

 

That's an interesting 'read'. Thanks for posting the link, hansolo.

[Crunk Bishop]

one of the disciples was named "Simon the Zealot." This guy was not Simon Peter, and there are no Gospel stories about Simon the Zealot. He just appears in the lists of disciples that appear in the Gospels... Matt 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19 and Acts 1:13.

 

i'm not sure what the Essenes thought about Paul...

 

The Ebionites (left over Jerusalem Christians after the destruction in 70 CE) did think Paul was sketchy. They probably wrote the non-canonical "Gospel of the Hebrews."

[Crunk Bishop]

i believe that Jesus himself was a Zealot, because of his violent action in the Temple... it was a model Zealot tactic. Josephus wrote about how Zealots since Judah Maccabee would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and then they'd stage a rally at the Temple to get support and with the people they had rallied that would storm Fort Antonio (right next door) to grab weapons, etc... The last Zealot in 125 CE, Simon bar Cochba, followed this plan except for the Temple part because it had been destroyed.

 

i argued in an undergraduate poli-sci paper that Jesus and his disciples were "terrorists!" I got an A.

 

 

 

i'll see if i can dig up the sources for that paper.... hell, that was almost 10 years ago.

[Alice]

Hi Scott,

 

We haven't conversed as yet - I've been away on holiday, so hello!

 

Having my 'belief' that the 'Bible is the actual Word of God' challenged was a pivotal moment for me in leaving literal christianity.

 

I am truely grateful to the person who got me thinking along these lines, although the deconversion process was scary and at times full of sorrow, the journey I am now on makes my soul sing and so I hope to pass some of this on to you.

 

I was attending a training course - it had nothing to do with christianity and was a work based course. By way of introduction the trainer spent some time talking about the nature of knowledge and the variable value of training.

 

She invited us to see ourselves as containers filled with thousands of drops of knowledge, no two people in the room knowing exactly the same. Every book we had read, experience we had enjoyed or sufferred, conversation we had shared with another, every thought process, every fact remembered and every fact forgotten added up to provide a completely unique cocktail of knowedge.

 

As she added the same drops of new knowledge into the mix during our training course - the end result would be different for each one of us, the training would mingle with all our past knowledge and each cocktail would taste differently as a result.

 

 

The 'Word of God' is a nonsense concept Scott,

 

Even if god had written it with a great big celestial biro - the moment the words leave the page and enter your understanding or my understanding they could no longer be the 'perfect word of God' - they can only ever be 'Scott's-limited-understanding-of-what-he-thinks-the-words-mean-filtered-through-his-understanding-and possibly-his-pastors-and-probably-several-other-minds-his-pastor-turns-to' of the word of God and subject to cultural and intellectual limitations and expectations.

 

And Scott, if you don't like what it says, or the popular interpretation doesn't 'feel' right - you wriggle around until you find an explanation that sits more comfortably with your 'spirit' right? (as in your departure from literal christianity where hell is concerned)

 

Its Scott's word not God's word.

 

Now I'm a little worried that I'm sounding like a disgruntled preacher who is worried his flock might be straying from the script. Many a time I've sat through just such a sermon, while the minister pushed his interpretation of a passage and claimed it as 'the word of God' and warned against the wriggling and the finding of meanings that mean something to us personally instead.

 

But that is not my intention - you go with that wriggling Scott - Good for you!!

[Ouroboros]

Alice, I like the cocktail description of knowledge. A very good allegory.

 

In my opinion it wasn't really a choice for anyone of us to become an ex-Christian. It was an unavoidable effect of the information we received and the reasoning from that information. The reason why someone get faith, keep faith or lose faith, is all based on what knowledge we have. If there was a God, and he/she really wanted me to believe, he/she would make sure I had the complete and correct information to be able to do so. If what I know is wrong, then at this point, since I don't know where the "true" and "full" information would be, it is up to this "God" to give it to me. If I'm not given the information I need from this supernatural being, and I can't find it when looking for it, then why am I to be blamed and punished for it?

[Piprus]

Hi, Alice, enjoyed your post.

 

Even if god had written it with a great big celestial biro - the moment the words leave the page and enter your understanding or my understanding they could no longer be the 'perfect word of God' - they can only ever be 'Scott's-limited-understanding-of-what-he-thinks-the-words-mean-filtered-through-his-understanding-and possibly-his-pastors-and-probably-several-other-minds-his-pastor-turns-to' of the word of God and subject to cultural and intellectual limitations and expectations.

 

Of course we probably both know the stock fundy reply to your very valid point, but I won't say it here. I wouldn't want to give little Scotty any ideas. Corruption of the innocent isn't my style.

[Checkmate]

Welcome back, dearest Alice! I see the vacation has left you even more centered and wise than before. Good post.

 

It also dovetails nicely with what Thomas Paine says in his Age of Reason concerning "revelation".

 

Revelation (from god), he says, ceases to be revelation when a person tells it to another. At that point it becomes hearsay. It loses its meaning, and has no value as "truth" to another person. What the "word of god" means to one person is totally different to another, as you so adroitly demonstrated.

[Alice]

Welcome back, dearest Alice! I see the vacation has left you even more centered and wise than before. Good post.

 

It also dovetails nicely with what Thomas Paine says in his Age of Reason concerning "revelation".

 

Revelation (from god), he says, ceases to be revelation when a person tells it to another. At that point it becomes hearsay. It loses its meaning, and has no value as "truth" to another person. What the "word of god" means to one person is totally different to another, as you so adroitly demonstrated.

 

Thanks for the nice welcome back Mr Grinch!

 

Not sure how balanced I am really though ... because every single time I make one of these kind of posts I'm still filled with an optimistic hope that the christian I'm talking to will actually read what I've said, think about it and make some kind of honest response, despite the fact that it never happens!

 

Am I insane? Be honest with me - I can take it! :wink:

[Checkmate]

Thanks for the nice welcome back Mr Grinch!

 

Not sure how balanced I am really though ... because every single time I make one of these kind of posts I'm still filled with an optimistic hope that the christian I'm talking to will actually read what I've said, think about it and make some kind of honest response, despite the fact that it never happens!

 

Am I insane? Be honest with me - I can take it! :wink:

Naive? Possibly. Hopeful? Definitely. Insane? Nah. So long as you're not believing in spooks and monsters under the bed, then you're still ok.

 

Although...someone DID say that insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.

 

(Uh-oh! We may ALL be insane! )

[NotBlinded]

 

If you don't want a debate, why prance in here starting a thread linking people to site full of bullshit?

 

(Yes, NotBlinded I said, "bullshit" .... and I wasn't joking ..... look at the site .... it's chuck full of bullshit... And Scotty here, doesn't want a debate.)

hehehehe...she said it again. >giggles like a little girl< hehehehe

 

Ohhhh...do I have to look at that site? It'll burn my eyes won't it? I can't look upon evil!

 

 

 

What is it with fundies and their addiction to the caps lock? I couldn't get past the first page of that website because it's too damn hard on the eyes.

I knew it would burn our eyes! That's it...I'm not looking. I don't want to resemble my avatar ever again!

[Amanda]

If there was a God, and he/she really wanted me to believe, he/she would make sure I had the complete and correct information to be able to do so. If what I know is wrong, then at this point, since I don't know where the "true" and "full" information would be, it is up to this "God" to give it to me.

HanSolo, I'm curious how your concept would change if there was a transition from a 'god' out there, to a 'god' within us. And the process of acquiring the information/knowledge, from and through ourself, is part of the procedure to gain a 'self' empowerment, which seems to me to be a better gift.

 

You seem, to me, like you know everything anyway!