| Users Online Now: 1,317 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 515,645 | |
| Pageviews Today: 661,829 | Threads Today: 189 | Posts Today: 2,311 |
| 05:50 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,317 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 515,645 | |
| Pageviews Today: 661,829 | Threads Today: 189 | Posts Today: 2,311 |
| 05:50 AM | ||
Christians : How do we know the Bible is true ? | |
Raymantheheretic  User ID: 15319456  United States05/22/2012 09:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Historically and to be technically semantic, no. Quoting: Raymantheheretic In what world could Peter define Paul's word's in any way as Holy scripture? There is no rightly understandable way. Read the links provided. At least two of them touch on that particular point. Leaving aside the fact second Peter is the only book all biblical scholars have agreed for over 16000 years is a completely forgery. ooops 1600 years. Nobody's perfect |
| Daniel's Seventieth Seven User ID: 1071051 United States05/22/2012 09:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Historically and to be technically semantic, no. Quoting: Raymantheheretic In what world could Peter define Paul's word's in any way as Holy scripture? There is no rightly understandable way. Read the links provided. At least two of them touch on that particular point. Leaving aside the fact second Peter is the only book all biblical scholars have agreed for over 16000 years is a completely forgery. ooops 1600 years. Nobody's perfect So- Do you also discard Luke? ? |
| Raymantheheretic User ID: 15319456 United States05/22/2012 09:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No I discard none of the Christian Bible. My belief is that the Bible is major proof that we should not place our faith in the hands of any man |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 4473716  New Zealand05/22/2012 09:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Daniel's Seventieth Seven User ID: 1071051 United States05/22/2012 09:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Raymantheheretic User ID: 15319456 United States05/22/2012 09:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 1183343 United States05/22/2012 09:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Daniel's Seventieth Seven User ID: 1071051 United States05/22/2012 09:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Ok counselor- Quoting: Daniel's Seventieth Seven 1071051 Are Luke's words Holy Scripture? (in your opinion) ? Holy in the sense of literal- no. In the sense on instructional? Yes. Most Def I have to leave for a while. Don't read much into any of my silence ;D Take your time- So- It appears that you give Paul's writings the same credence as the Gospels and the rest of the Bible. If not- Please explain. thx. /\ |
| KlLLUMINATI (OP) User ID: 11546392 United States05/22/2012 09:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | There are two possible resolutions. The first is that Paul was acting erroneously. This in itself is not a flaw or contradiction in the bible for wrong acts of God fearing people are recorded in both the OT and NT historical events. While Paul was an apostle he was not divine and therefore not expected to behave perfectly in every situation. In fact he referred to his own sinfulness and argued with another Christian. His subsequent statement that he didnt recognize the high priest and was wrong to have cursed him could well have been sincere. The second possible answer is that Paul was correct to speak as he did and may even have been inspired by the holy spirit to prophesy Ananias future judgement. While the general rule for Christians is to not curse others or avenge ourselves there are times when it is correct for someone to speak in judgement. An example of this is the account of Ananias and Sapphira who were struck dead when Peter judged them since it was God who struck them dead Peter was speaking as God wanted him to. Similarly Paul was correct in that Ananias was violating the law in ordering Paul to be struck, and what he said may have been what God instructed him to say. His claim to have not recognized the high priest could then have been sarcasm "Oh, you mean this fellow who just violated the Law is the high priest? Sorry, I somehow didn't recognize him". Of these solutions the first seems the most likely to me. She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you? -Norman Bates I think that rich people should live like poor people, and poor people should live like rich people, and change every week.... -Tupac Shakur Somebody help me, tell me where to go from here cause even Thugs cry, but do the Lord care? -Tupac Shakur I don't have no fear of death. My only fear is coming back reincarnated. -Tupac Shakur I believe in human beings, and that all human beings should be respected as such, regardless of their color. -Malcolm X A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything. -Malcolm X When there’s no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth. -Dawn of the Dead What an excellent day for an exorcism. -The Exorcist |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 16535426 United States05/22/2012 10:40 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Christianity is not a blind faith. It is the only religion that can prove itself and a main source of that proof is the Bible. Although it is becoming less common there are still people who tell others that they follow Christianity "because it feels right" or use wording like that. This is unfortunate since there is a lot of evidence supporting Christianity. Quoting: KlLLUMINATI The strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. The Old Testament was written between 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by Gods prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other sacred writing has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future. Both the Old and New Testaments are strongly supported by manuscript evidence. The Dead Sea Scrolls are one example of the Old Testament evidence. These documents came from the library of a settlement founded at Qumran before 150 B.C. and abandoned about 68 A.D. Some of the manuscript copies were made during that period, and some were written earlier and brought to the settlement. Ignoring spelling-oriented changes and similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind todays Old Testament in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years. Over 20,000 known manuscripts document the New Testament text. This makes the New Testament the most reliable document of antiquity. These manuscripts vary in size from a part of a page to an entire Bible. The earliest New Testament manuscripts date from the second century AD. These manuscript copies were written in different languages by people of different nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In spite of all those differences between them, the New Testament texts all agree.  [link to carm.org] [link to www.rationalchristianity.net] WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION??? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 16535426 United States05/22/2012 10:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Christianity is not a blind faith. It is the only religion that can prove itself and a main source of that proof is the Bible. Although it is becoming less common there are still people who tell others that they follow Christianity "because it feels right" or use wording like that. This is unfortunate since there is a lot of evidence supporting Christianity. Quoting: KlLLUMINATI The strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. The Old Testament was written between 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by Gods prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other sacred writing has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future. Both the Old and New Testaments are strongly supported by manuscript evidence. The Dead Sea Scrolls are one example of the Old Testament evidence. These documents came from the library of a settlement founded at Qumran before 150 B.C. and abandoned about 68 A.D. Some of the manuscript copies were made during that period, and some were written earlier and brought to the settlement. Ignoring spelling-oriented changes and similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind todays Old Testament in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years. Over 20,000 known manuscripts document the New Testament text. This makes the New Testament the most reliable document of antiquity. These manuscripts vary in size from a part of a page to an entire Bible. The earliest New Testament manuscripts date from the second century AD. These manuscript copies were written in different languages by people of different nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In spite of all those differences between them, the New Testament texts all agree. [link to carm.org] [link to www.rationalchristianity.net] WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION??? RELIGION IS CREATION OF SATAN... SINCE SATAN CAN NOT CREATE.... RELIGION ALL RELIGIONS ARE FILLED WITH LIE'S |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 16535426 United States05/22/2012 11:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Christianity is not a blind faith. It is the only religion that can prove itself and a main source of that proof is the Bible. Although it is becoming less common there are still people who tell others that they follow Christianity "because it feels right" or use wording like that. This is unfortunate since there is a lot of evidence supporting Christianity. Quoting: KlLLUMINATI The strongest arguments for the accuracy of the Bible is its 100% accuracy in predicting the future. The Old Testament was written between 1450 BC and 430 BC. During that time, many predictions of the future were recorded in the Bible by Gods prophets. Of the events that were to have taken place by now, every one happened just the way they predicted it would. No other sacred writing has such perfectly accurate predictions of the future. Both the Old and New Testaments are strongly supported by manuscript evidence. The Dead Sea Scrolls are one example of the Old Testament evidence. These documents came from the library of a settlement founded at Qumran before 150 B.C. and abandoned about 68 A.D. Some of the manuscript copies were made during that period, and some were written earlier and brought to the settlement. Ignoring spelling-oriented changes and similar small differences, the Dead Sea Scrolls match the Hebrew text behind todays Old Testament in spite of the passage of over 2,000 years. Over 20,000 known manuscripts document the New Testament text. This makes the New Testament the most reliable document of antiquity. These manuscripts vary in size from a part of a page to an entire Bible. The earliest New Testament manuscripts date from the second century AD. These manuscript copies were written in different languages by people of different nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In spite of all those differences between them, the New Testament texts all agree. [link to carm.org] [link to www.rationalchristianity.net] WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION??? THE BIBLE IS "THE TRUTH".... WHAT IS "THE TRUTH"... "THE TRUTH" IS ABSOLUTE TRUTH... OR WHAT IS CERTAIN, PERFECT AND CLEAR... PROJECT THIS... JESUS CHRIST IS THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS EVER SAID HE IS.... "THE WAY"... "THE TRUTH"... "THE LIFE"... |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 10858311 United States05/23/2012 12:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Historically and to be technically semantic, no. Quoting: Raymantheheretic In what world could Peter define Paul's word's in any way as Holy scripture? There is no rightly understandable way. Read the links provided. At least two of them touch on that particular point. Leaving aside the fact second Peter is the only book all biblical scholars have agreed for over 16000 years is a completely forgery. ooops 1600 years. Nobody's perfect This is from your 1st link given: "The Muratorian Fragment (170 A.D.? 350 A.D.?) The Muratorian fragment was discovered in the 1700s in a Catholic monastery. The actual document is from the seventh or eighth century. The source from which it comes from has no easy means of identifying its date. Initially, the Muratorian fragment was estimated to be from 170 A.D. For tradition-sake, it is placed at this juncture in the canon story. However, in 1992, an Oxford scholar put forth what appears to be a better reasoned case which dates it to the Fourth Century." Compare: When was the information in the Muratorian Fragment originally written? It seems that the original was composed in Greek many centuries before the Fragment text, which is a Latin translation of the Greek. Here is a clue that helps in dating the original. The Fragment mentions a non-Biblical book, the Shepherd, and states that a man named Hermas wrote it “very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome.” Scholars date the final writing of Hermas’ Shepherd between 140 and 155 C.E. Thus, you can see why the Greek-language original of the Latin Muratorian Fragment is dated to between 170 and 200 C.E. Does your source prefer it to be later, because he doesn't want it to be considered authoritative? This is just the 1st of many examples of what appears to be slanting info to suit the author's doctrines. For example, I don't notice M.F.'s 'lukewarm' treatment of Paul at all when it's quoted more fully in other sources. More second century cataloguing:Origen, about the year 230 C.E., accepted among the inspired Scriptures the books of Hebrews and James, both missing from the Muratorian Fragment. While he indicates that some doubted their canonical quality, this also shows that by this time, the canonicity of most of the Greek Scriptures was accepted, only a few doubting some of the less well-known epistles. Later, Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine acknowledged the conclusions of earlier lists by defining as the canon the same 27 books that we now have. But why do we not find exact lists earlier than the Muratorian Fragment? It was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept. Marcion constructed his own canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Paul’s letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke. This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by then spreading throughout the world, was what led to statements by catalogers as to which books they accepted as canonical. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 10858311 United States05/23/2012 12:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The Roman Catholic Church claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon, and reference is made to the Council of Carthage (397 C.E.), where a catalog of books was formulated. The opposite is true, however, because the canon, including the list of books making up the Christian Greek Scriptures, was already settled by then. |
| Raymantheheretic User ID: 15319456 United States05/23/2012 07:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Ok counselor- Quoting: Daniel's Seventieth Seven 1071051 Are Luke's words Holy Scripture? (in your opinion) ? Holy in the sense of literal- no. In the sense on instructional? Yes. Most Def I have to leave for a while. Don't read much into any of my silence ;D Take your time- So- It appears that you give Paul's writings the same credence as the Gospels and the rest of the Bible. If not- Please explain. thx. /\ Credence- excellent word choice Yes, I give Paul's words credence. Roughly 95% worth It's that 5% or so that hurts and snares us Permission/encouragement to judge others Wiggle room to sin with atonement assured Predetermined crowns of (self)righteousness waiting in heaven and so forth Those are some of the biggies as I see it. But that's just me. The links I've provided, while they offer ample scriptural proof of Paul being wrong, are mega serious about the Law aspect. I think we are very close to having the Law written on our hearts if we can dump the real baggage. I'll be back in a day or so if need be |
| Raymantheheretic User ID: 15319456 United States05/23/2012 07:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is from your 1st link given: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10858311 "The Muratorian Fragment (170 A.D.? 350 A.D.?) The Muratorian fragment was discovered in the 1700s in a Catholic monastery. The actual document is from the seventh or eighth century. The source from which it comes from has no easy means of identifying its date. Initially, the Muratorian fragment was estimated to be from 170 A.D. For tradition-sake, it is placed at this juncture in the canon story. However, in 1992, an Oxford scholar put forth what appears to be a better reasoned case which dates it to the Fourth Century." Compare: When was the information in the Muratorian Fragment originally written? It seems that the original was composed in Greek many centuries before the Fragment text, which is a Latin translation of the Greek. Here is a clue that helps in dating the original. The Fragment mentions a non-Biblical book, the Shepherd, and states that a man named Hermas wrote it “very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome.” Scholars date the final writing of Hermas’ Shepherd between 140 and 155 C.E. Thus, you can see why the Greek-language original of the Latin Muratorian Fragment is dated to between 170 and 200 C.E. Does your source prefer it to be later, because he doesn't want it to be considered authoritative? This is just the 1st of many examples of what appears to be slanting info to suit the author's doctrines. For example, I don't notice M.F.'s 'lukewarm' treatment of Paul at all when it's quoted more fully in other sources. More second century cataloguing:Origen, about the year 230 C.E., accepted among the inspired Scriptures the books of Hebrews and James, both missing from the Muratorian Fragment. While he indicates that some doubted their canonical quality, this also shows that by this time, the canonicity of most of the Greek Scriptures was accepted, only a few doubting some of the less well-known epistles. Later, Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine acknowledged the conclusions of earlier lists by defining as the canon the same 27 books that we now have. But why do we not find exact lists earlier than the Muratorian Fragment? It was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept. Marcion constructed his own canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Paul’s letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke. This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by then spreading throughout the world, was what led to statements by catalogers as to which books they accepted as canonical. Woah... are you trying to lead me on some kind of scholarly goose chase? Are we fishing for red herring? If we are still going on about 2Peter, had you bothered to read what the author said on the subject, he would very much like for it to be inspired/authoritative as it clearly shows Paul's words to be problematic. They're words not Words. |
| FaithNoMore User ID: 15492911 United States05/23/2012 07:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I can never take these threads seriously.  "If by the liberty of the press were understood merely the liberty of discussing the propriety of public measures and political opinions, let us have as much of it as you please: But if it means the liberty of affronting, calumniating and defaming one another, I, for my part, own myself willing to part with my share of it, whenever our legislators shall please so to alter the law and shall chearfully consent to exchange my liberty of abusing others for the privilege of not being abused myself." -Ben Franklin |
| FaithNoMore User ID: 15492911 United States05/23/2012 07:33 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | By the way... Definition of faith a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust [link to www.merriam-webster.com] Last Edited by FaithNoMore on 05/23/2012 07:36 AM "If by the liberty of the press were understood merely the liberty of discussing the propriety of public measures and political opinions, let us have as much of it as you please: But if it means the liberty of affronting, calumniating and defaming one another, I, for my part, own myself willing to part with my share of it, whenever our legislators shall please so to alter the law and shall chearfully consent to exchange my liberty of abusing others for the privilege of not being abused myself." -Ben Franklin |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 16546094  Slovenia05/23/2012 07:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | OP, if you'd claim the Bible being your spiritual truth, I wouldn't even try to oppose you. Indeed The Bible reflects some proven historical events, but... that cannot qualify it as a literal truth. "The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" (Matthew 13:10) You have some good thoughts, but calm down your zeal, please. |
| KlLLUMINATI (OP) User ID: 11546392 United States05/23/2012 08:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Its very easy to just not read my thread if you know you're not going to add anything of any importance. She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you? -Norman Bates I think that rich people should live like poor people, and poor people should live like rich people, and change every week.... -Tupac Shakur Somebody help me, tell me where to go from here cause even Thugs cry, but do the Lord care? -Tupac Shakur I don't have no fear of death. My only fear is coming back reincarnated. -Tupac Shakur I believe in human beings, and that all human beings should be respected as such, regardless of their color. -Malcolm X A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything. -Malcolm X When there’s no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth. -Dawn of the Dead What an excellent day for an exorcism. -The Exorcist |
| FaithNoMore User ID: 15492911 United States05/23/2012 09:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Its very easy to just not read my thread if you know you're not going to add anything of any importance. Quoting: KlLLUMINATI Yes, very easy. It is the same argument you have in almost every thread you have. It was possibly important the first time, but the 15th time you posted the same thread about claiming proof in faith has become obnoxious. What's next? You gonna knock on my door to shove your belief in my face? "If by the liberty of the press were understood merely the liberty of discussing the propriety of public measures and political opinions, let us have as much of it as you please: But if it means the liberty of affronting, calumniating and defaming one another, I, for my part, own myself willing to part with my share of it, whenever our legislators shall please so to alter the law and shall chearfully consent to exchange my liberty of abusing others for the privilege of not being abused myself." -Ben Franklin |
| Daniel's Seventieth Seven User ID: 1071051 United States05/23/2012 10:58 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Ok counselor- Quoting: Daniel's Seventieth Seven 1071051 Are Luke's words Holy Scripture? (in your opinion) ? Holy in the sense of literal- no. In the sense on instructional? Yes. Most Def I have to leave for a while. Don't read much into any of my silence ;D Take your time- So- It appears that you give Paul's writings the same credence as the Gospels and the rest of the Bible. If not- Please explain. thx. /\ Credence- excellent word choice Yes, I give Paul's words credence. Roughly 95% worth It's that 5% or so that hurts and snares us Permission/encouragement to judge others Wiggle room to sin with atonement assured Predetermined crowns of (self)righteousness waiting in heaven and so forth Those are some of the biggies as I see it. But that's just me. The links I've provided, while they offer ample scriptural proof of Paul being wrong, are mega serious about the Law aspect. I think we are very close to having the Law written on our hearts if we can dump the real baggage. I'll be back in a day or so if need be Thanks for your response- Of your 3 biggies that you listed- Can you pick one and post the scripture verse(or verses) that bother you the most? (your words- not your link) Also- Do you give the rest of the Bible 95% or do you give it 100%? ? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 1530791 United States05/23/2012 11:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 1530791 United States05/23/2012 11:19 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Considering many followers of Jesus understand that half of the New Testament was written by a False Apostle leads me to believe the truth contained within the Bible is not as cut and dried as so many devout ‘Christians’ claim it to be. Quoting: Raymantheheretic Suggested reading: [link to www.jesuswordsonly.com] [link to www.judaismvschristianity.com] [link to truthseeker-archive.blogspot.com] The three links above use the Bible to prove beyond a shadow of doubt the self-proclaimed 'Apostle' Paul/Saul is not to be trusted. I beg, plead, pray you'll at least skim through them and hopefully glean the truth they aim to present. The sooner you choose to follow Jesus instead of Paul/Saul the sooner you might actually gain a chance of reaching beyond the Pauline choir to touch someone in need instead of running all over this forum being a bothersome self-righteous prick. I’m not judging, just pointing out the facts. Truth here in this post for sure. And let me just add the lying pen of the scribes edited the Torah and added animal sacrifice and meat eating! You can verify this based upon a study of the real historical Jesus and his early followers and family and Apostles! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 1530791 United States05/23/2012 11:34 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "Faith by definition is believing in something which cannot be seen. " Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10858311 But also, Hebrews 11:1" Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration [or demonstration by evidence] of realities though not beheld. 2 For by means of this the men of old times had witness borne to them." You cannot see the wind, but you can perceive it nonetheless, because you can see the "demonstration by evidence" of its' effects. If you never look out the window or go outside because, say,a Bart Ehrman has warned small, tender you of the dangers that you will succumb to a belief in a massive centuries-old hoax tptb call "wind", then... lol if you knew the Hebrew Scriptures and what "Emunah" means you would know 100% for a fact that Hebrews 11:1 is one of the biggest lies that got voted into your cannon! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 10858311 United States05/23/2012 12:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is from your 1st link given: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10858311 "The Muratorian Fragment (170 A.D.? 350 A.D.?) The Muratorian fragment was discovered in the 1700s in a Catholic monastery. The actual document is from the seventh or eighth century. The source from which it comes from has no easy means of identifying its date. Initially, the Muratorian fragment was estimated to be from 170 A.D. For tradition-sake, it is placed at this juncture in the canon story. However, in 1992, an Oxford scholar put forth what appears to be a better reasoned case which dates it to the Fourth Century." Compare: When was the information in the Muratorian Fragment originally written? It seems that the original was composed in Greek many centuries before the Fragment text, which is a Latin translation of the Greek. Here is a clue that helps in dating the original. The Fragment mentions a non-Biblical book, the Shepherd, and states that a man named Hermas wrote it “very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome.” Scholars date the final writing of Hermas’ Shepherd between 140 and 155 C.E. Thus, you can see why the Greek-language original of the Latin Muratorian Fragment is dated to between 170 and 200 C.E. Does your source prefer it to be later, because he doesn't want it to be considered authoritative? This is just the 1st of many examples of what appears to be slanting info to suit the author's doctrines. For example, I don't notice M.F.'s 'lukewarm' treatment of Paul at all when it's quoted more fully in other sources. More second century cataloguing:Origen, about the year 230 C.E., accepted among the inspired Scriptures the books of Hebrews and James, both missing from the Muratorian Fragment. While he indicates that some doubted their canonical quality, this also shows that by this time, the canonicity of most of the Greek Scriptures was accepted, only a few doubting some of the less well-known epistles. Later, Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine acknowledged the conclusions of earlier lists by defining as the canon the same 27 books that we now have. But why do we not find exact lists earlier than the Muratorian Fragment? It was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept. Marcion constructed his own canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Paul’s letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke. This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by then spreading throughout the world, was what led to statements by catalogers as to which books they accepted as canonical. Woah... are you trying to lead me on some kind of scholarly goose chase? Are we fishing for red herring? If we are still going on about 2Peter, had you bothered to read what the author said on the subject, he would very much like for it to be inspired/authoritative as it clearly shows Paul's words to be problematic. They're words not Words. I'm trying to respond to what you've written here and your links. I've already read more of what you suggested than I've posted. If you do feel interested to look into this further, the last thing I would want is to send you on a wild goose chase. I've gone back and started reading Jesus Words Only site about 2 Peter and I'm already having difficulties. He says that this book wasn't listed by early catalogers of the canon [before 397], but my research says that of 16 early catalogs [170-397 AD] 2 and possibly one other listed 2 Peter as of doubtful authenticity,3 acknowledged that others had doubts but that they personally did not doubt its' authenticity, and 2 did not quote 2 Peter in their writings from which their lists were later compiled. [< this last doesn't mean these 2 had rejected it , however. It is just that they did not happen to refer to them in their writings either by choice or because of the subjects under discussion.] So the majority do accept 2Peter into the canon before 397. -have to go now. Hopefully can get back to this soon-- soon- |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 10858311 United States05/23/2012 12:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Raymantheheretic User ID: 15319456 United States06/01/2012 07:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | ... Quoting: Raymantheheretic Holy in the sense of literal- no. In the sense on instructional? Yes. Most Def I have to leave for a while. Don't read much into any of my silence ;D Take your time- So- It appears that you give Paul's writings the same credence as the Gospels and the rest of the Bible. If not- Please explain. thx. /\ Credence- excellent word choice Yes, I give Paul's words credence. Roughly 95% worth It's that 5% or so that hurts and snares us Permission/encouragement to judge others Wiggle room to sin with atonement assured Predetermined crowns of (self)righteousness waiting in heaven and so forth Those are some of the biggies as I see it. But that's just me. The links I've provided, while they offer ample scriptural proof of Paul being wrong, are mega serious about the Law aspect. I think we are very close to having the Law written on our hearts if we can dump the real baggage. I'll be back in a day or so if need be Thanks for your response- Of your 3 biggies that you listed- Can you pick one and post the scripture verse(or verses) that bother you the most? (your words- not your link) Also- Do you give the rest of the Bible 95% or do you give it 100%? ? Sorry for the long delay The three together feed on one another to form an unholy trinity of bullshit and serve to foster a continuing atmosphere in which many feel free to condemn one another to hell based on there own belief and self assurance of there place in heaven, whatever or wherever the hell they think that is. About as far as you can get from what Jesus tried to teach us IMO. I don't wish to out of hand dismiss your specific requests but if the three links I provided (two of which are full books on the subject!) aren't able to show well enough major problems with Paul's writings I don't think there would be much more to say here that could help. It's not a question of evil men being able to twist his writings, it's a matter of over and over how Paul hangs himself with his own words when objectively compared to the rest of the Bible. Objective study for ones own self is the sure way to discover the true status of the 'Apostle' Paul. Asking for the aid and guidance of the Holy Spirit beforehand won't hurt either. |
| Raymantheheretic User ID: 15319456 United States06/01/2012 07:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is from your 1st link given: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 10858311 "The Muratorian Fragment (170 A.D.? 350 A.D.?) The Muratorian fragment was discovered in the 1700s in a Catholic monastery. The actual document is from the seventh or eighth century. The source from which it comes from has no easy means of identifying its date. Initially, the Muratorian fragment was estimated to be from 170 A.D. For tradition-sake, it is placed at this juncture in the canon story. However, in 1992, an Oxford scholar put forth what appears to be a better reasoned case which dates it to the Fourth Century." Compare: When was the information in the Muratorian Fragment originally written? It seems that the original was composed in Greek many centuries before the Fragment text, which is a Latin translation of the Greek. Here is a clue that helps in dating the original. The Fragment mentions a non-Biblical book, the Shepherd, and states that a man named Hermas wrote it “very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome.” Scholars date the final writing of Hermas’ Shepherd between 140 and 155 C.E. Thus, you can see why the Greek-language original of the Latin Muratorian Fragment is dated to between 170 and 200 C.E. Does your source prefer it to be later, because he doesn't want it to be considered authoritative? This is just the 1st of many examples of what appears to be slanting info to suit the author's doctrines. For example, I don't notice M.F.'s 'lukewarm' treatment of Paul at all when it's quoted more fully in other sources. More second century cataloguing:Origen, about the year 230 C.E., accepted among the inspired Scriptures the books of Hebrews and James, both missing from the Muratorian Fragment. While he indicates that some doubted their canonical quality, this also shows that by this time, the canonicity of most of the Greek Scriptures was accepted, only a few doubting some of the less well-known epistles. Later, Athanasius, Jerome, and Augustine acknowledged the conclusions of earlier lists by defining as the canon the same 27 books that we now have. But why do we not find exact lists earlier than the Muratorian Fragment? It was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept. Marcion constructed his own canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Paul’s letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke. This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by then spreading throughout the world, was what led to statements by catalogers as to which books they accepted as canonical. Woah... are you trying to lead me on some kind of scholarly goose chase? Are we fishing for red herring? If we are still going on about 2Peter, had you bothered to read what the author said on the subject, he would very much like for it to be inspired/authoritative as it clearly shows Paul's words to be problematic. They're words not Words. I'm trying to respond to what you've written here and your links. I've already read more of what you suggested than I've posted. If you do feel interested to look into this further, the last thing I would want is to send you on a wild goose chase. I've gone back and started reading Jesus Words Only site about 2 Peter and I'm already having difficulties. He says that this book wasn't listed by early catalogers of the canon [before 397], but my research says that of 16 early catalogs [170-397 AD] 2 and possibly one other listed 2 Peter as of doubtful authenticity,3 acknowledged that others had doubts but that they personally did not doubt its' authenticity, and 2 did not quote 2 Peter in their writings from which their lists were later compiled. [< this last doesn't mean these 2 had rejected it , however. It is just that they did not happen to refer to them in their writings either by choice or because of the subjects under discussion.] So the majority do accept 2Peter into the canon before 397. -have to go now. Hopefully can get back to this soon-- Again, I'm sorry this wasn't sooner While I do share an interest in the history of the Bibles canonization don't see the need and have no desire to get bogged down in it. I too have some problems with parts of what the JWO author has presented. For instance; claiming it's time to eject second Peter from the Bible based on solid evidence it's likely a forgery (according to the scholars, not only is the writing style in no way similar to first Peter but it contains certain words not yet in use during Peter's time) is purely counter productive for two very good reasons. First, most believers will automatically balk at the very idea, second and much more importantly it serves exquisitely to fulfill Jesus prophecy to Peter in John 21:18 "I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." Further, I find Peter's statement concerning Paul's words are ambiguous at best, at worst they seem to cast a critical aspect on Paul's writing which is the primary reason both Calvin and Luther argued 2Peter should not be considered inspired. My belief is everything in both the Old & New Testament has purpose and meaning, that we haven't always fully grasped or understood it all is painfully obvious. The lesson of allowing His adversary to pen half the books of the New Testament plainly shows me we should never trust the words of men as the literal Word of God and the most dangerous Satan of all is can be extremely difficult to distinguish. Especially when it's us. |
