• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Religions of Abraham Backwards?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
t_BuckeyeScott;1691427; said:
So go through which ones you think should be left out and which ones should be put in.
Click to expand...
Do we even have all the ones which might have been under consideration? Of course, this is little more than the most wild of speculation... but.. suppose there was a book which said "No, no, no.. this is the TRUE word.." and some council, for bad reasons, said "Well, we can't have that book in here" wouldn't that be a serious problem?

Obviously an extreme example devoid of any offer of proof that such a thing happened... but, as an exercise... How would we know any different?

Wouldn't we have to look at how the "alleged" word matches up to what we see in the world? (Maybe in looking at how a church chooses to use it's particular influence, fore example).

If religion is as serious a topic as we all purport it to be... wouldn't it require of us the most careful scrutiny?
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1691416; said:
No more or less than I agree it was man who wrote the books if that brings any clarity. As much as anything is reasonable it's reasonable to argue that. But the idea that what some Pope did 1000 years later bears on whether we actually have God's Word is not worth my time.
Click to expand...
Now, look at the next sentance:

Now the validity of how the choosing was done is a different story.
Click to expand...
Get it?
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1691431; said:
Muffler,
I'd imagine you would put most of the NT there, but the point is you have no use or nearly no use for Jesus so that's what you would do.
Click to expand...

Truthfully, that is not the case at all. While the Christian testament has no bearing whatsoever on my belief structure, that doesn't mean I consider it all rubbish.

Interestingly enough, the Letter to the Hebrews does not even satisfy all of the criteria that were establish for canonization. The most glaring would be authenticity of authorship.

As for my personal bent, I would rate the Letter to the Hebrews as the lowest grade book in the Christian testament.

I would place the Gospels at the pinnacle with them being Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John as far as credibility/consistency/believability.

I enjoy the book of Acts.

Paul and his epistles are helpful for understanding the mind of the man; but they offer me nothing more than that at all. I don't like Paul.

I like the book of James. Revelation is a fun read.

The minor letters don't hold much for me.

Thus, it's not a complete dismissal at all. I have more reasoning behind my thoughts than that. :biggrin:
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1691432; said:
Do we even have all the ones which might have been under consideration? Of course, this is little more than the most wild of speculation... but.. suppose there was a book which said "No, no, no.. this is the TRUE word.." and some council, for bad reasons, said "Well, we can't have that book in here" wouldn't that be a serious problem?

Obviously an extreme example devoid of any offer of proof that such a thing happened... but, as an exercise... How would we know any different?

Wouldn't we have to look at how the "alleged" word matches up to what we see in the world? (Maybe in looking at how a church chooses to use it's particular influence, fore example).

If religion is as serious a topic as we all purport it to be... wouldn't it require of us the most careful scrutiny?
Click to expand...
I'm all for scrutiny. "Test all things and hold fast to that which is good"
1 Thessalonians 5:21
But see when we talk about the Spanish Inquisition, I can't pull anything from the Bible that supports it. Same with child molestation. I could find many passages though that could condem though. You also have to remember even by the time we get to 1000 AD I have lots of problems with the teaching of the Catholic Church. They were already diverging far from what I believe the Bible teaches.
Bleed S & G;1691433; said:
Now, look at the next sentance:


Get it?
Click to expand...
So you're telling me that people who's belief diverge far from mine and how they acted should determine what I believe?
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1691445; said:
You also have to remember even by the time we get to 1000 AD I have lots of problems with the teaching of the Catholic Church. They were already diverging far from what I believe the Bible teaches.
Click to expand...

Question unrelated to the purpose you made this statement, but I wanted to ask anyway:

Do you believe that Luther wanted more than a reformation?
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1691458; said:
Definitely not an expert on Luther that some here are. I believe he wanted to stay a part of the Roman Catholic Church. I'm wondering if you mean anything more by "more"?
Click to expand...

Precisely what I was talking about wth the emboldened. Kudos for the thought. I've run into so many people that are under the mindset that Luther wanted schism or anything more than just a few amendments.
 
Upvote 0
t_BuckeyeScott;1691458; said:
Definitely not an expert on Luther that some here are. I believe he wanted to stay a part of the Roman Catholic Church. I'm wondering if you mean anything more by "more"?
Click to expand...

He certainly only wanted internal reform in his earlier days. When he nailed his 95 theses to the cathedral door, he was only looking for an internal debate within the Catholic Church.

But at least by 1523, he began to realize that reform would not occur within the Catholic Church and he adopted separation, but always with the hope that separation would eventually lead to a universal church once again, but under the Reformer's ideas. In his later writings and sermons Luther went so far as to call the Pope the antichrist, which shows to what extent he moved in his views over time.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad said:
He certainly only wanted internal reform in his earlier days. When he nailed his 95 theses to the cathedral door, he was only looking for an internal debate within the Catholic Church.

But at least by 1523, he began to realize that reform would not occur within the Catholic Church and he adopted separation, but always with the hope that separation would eventually lead to a universal church once again, but under the Reformer's ideas. In his later writings and sermons Luther went so far as to call the Pope the antichrist, which shows to what extent he moved in his views over time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's basically how I understand it all went down.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1691502; said:
He certainly only wanted internal reform in his earlier days. When he nailed his 95 theses to the cathedral door, he was only looking for an internal debate within the Catholic Church.

But at least by 1523, he began to realize that reform would not occur within the Catholic Church and he adopted separation, but always with the hope that separation would eventually lead to a universal church once again, but under the Reformer's ideas. In his later writings and sermons Luther went so far as to call the Pope the antichrist, which shows to what extent he moved in his views over time.
Click to expand...

Indeed (and about a great many things).
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top