ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/06/84)
Byron writes, >>The only truth that man can know is revealed in the Bible. Where is your >>source of truth? ... >>Where is this said, not in the Bible. God's word is my only source of truth. ... >>The arrogance of men is their failure to take into account all of God's >>attributes (as stated clearly in creation and the Bible) and instead to >>pick out only the ones that will fit well into their theology! > But is that not exactly how the Bible was created? It is well > documented that the canonization of what w
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/13/84)
(I was told that this posting was damaged. For this reason I'm trying again.) Byron writes, >>The only truth that man can know is revealed in the Bible. Where is your >>source of truth? ... >>Where is this said, not in the Bible. God's word is my only source of truth. ... >>The arrogance of men is their failure to take into account all of God's >>attributes (as stated clearly in creation and the Bible) and instead to >>pick out only the ones that will fit well into their theology! > But is that not exactly how the Bible was created? It is well > documented that the canonization of what we now know as the New > Testament -- a process which took place in the 2nd through 4th > centuries C.E. -- was one of culling through many documents and > discarding those which did not fit with the theology of the time. We > aren't dealing with a set of documents set down by the Diety, but a set > of documents selected by men from a much larger body. One must not > underestimate the power of the Roman Church in its efforts to purify > the Apostolic faith. Do not forget that history, as someone has said, > "is written by the winners." Is the Catholic Church more powerfull than God himself? If God wanted to tell us the way of salvation, wouldn't He make sure that all the *inspired* works were included? Does God have no power over a few men? The ultimate power and authority that God has makes me believe that not only are all the scriptures insprired by Him included in today's Bible, but also that His word has been preserved through the ages in much the same form that it was written. Most people don't seem to take into account that if the God of the Bible does exist, He would be able to keep His word free from the error of man. >>I only speak what I have read in the Bible (which can only be understood with >>the Holy Spirit living inside after salvation). I do not take parts of God >>and parts of His Word to make my theology. > ...but by your own admission, you do. There are other Christian > perspectives on the nature of G-d and Christ that can be fruitfully > examined. > Byron C. Howes My statement above meant that I do not take portions of today's Bible and use just those to make up a theology. This is how much of today's Biblical error has crept into the Christian faith. I do not believe in the inspiration of any other documents besides those in today's Bible. --- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken ---------------
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/15/84)
[I would like to point out that this is just about the only discussion in this group that would properly belong in a net.religion.christian] The internal evidence contained within the manuscripts suggests that God did not ensure the inerrancy of the New Testament. First, all the existing manuscripts differ in some respects. We must therefore annoint one of the existing versions as the Right one, or posit the existence of what the scholars refer to as an "Ur-copy", which we do not have, and thus cannot say anything conclusive about without introducing lots of assumptions and presuppositions about what the Ur-copy said. I don't see any good reason to take either approach; I am willing to admit that what texts we have now contain error. I have pointed out before that there are internal inconsistencies within the Gospels; an example is the differing geneologies for Jesus. There is good evidence in the texts for taking some parts of the text as having less authority than others. Even the fundamentalists appear to observe this principle, even as the protest to the contrary. I notice, for instance, that very few churches require women to wear hats. Episcopalians believe the church to be inspired, and assign some authority to church traditions. Fundamentalists give authority to their own church traditions-- without the review that Episcopal tradition is subject to. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Ubi caritas et amor, deus ibi est.
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (11/16/84)
>From Charley Wingate: > I would like to point out that this is just about the only discussion in > this group that would properly belong in a net.religion.christian. So what? Before the creation of net.religion.jewish, there were NO discussions in the average month that would belong on that group.... -- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim (supposedly) "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.