by wannabefree 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
it's too open to debate even with your restriction
Yah, I suppose. I just meant, to me it would be apparent that if one was an athiest, the Bible could be nothing more than history mixed with superstition and some good moral advice, therefore, no scripture could be inspired by God. That just wasn't the angle I was looking for.
Thanks for all of the comments.
What we think inspired by God means and what the people of the 1st century believed it to mean are NOT the samething.
What we think inspired by God means and what the people of the 1st century believed it to mean are NOT the samething.
I guess that kind of gets to the root of why I am wondering about this subject. Should we just arrive at some kind of average faith based on Christ's teaching about love and not sweat the details, the dogmatism? If the message from God to man is found in the Bible, and it is inspired, and it should be able to be understood by common people, wouldn't that mean it is a simple message?
Should we have to wonder what a particular word meant so we can know "the truth" or is truth much simpler than that? If the Bible is God's message to man, should the average reader have to understand the Greek vernacular of the apostle's time to get the real sense of what that message is? Should we have to be overly concerned with a particular translation of that text or does God's message with help from His Spirit transcend the trying to get it exactly right?
Well, that depends on if you believe the bible to be inerrant or infalliable or neither.
The message is actually very simple, God loves us and wants us to love each other and be good to each other and in doing that, we love and hnour God.
Beyond that we have doctrine and theology and history and so forth.
If you had to chalk up the message of the NT in one word, for me anyways, that word would be love.
What we think inspired by God means and what the people of the 1st century believed it to mean are NOT the samething.
So, true, dear PSacto (the greatest of love and peace to you!). Even more true is that what we think inspired means, and what the Bible translators thought it meant, and what the people of the 1st century... BELIEVED... are not the same things. I offer:
What "we" think today: given by inspiration of God; God "made us" think/do/make it ("inspired");
What Bible translators thought: literally breathed by God; came directly from God's mouth to the writer ("theospneestos");
What 1st century people BELIEVED: the writer was literally IN SPIRIT; transcending the flesh so as to see and hear, literally, what was occuring in the SPIRIT realm. (Revelation 4:2; 2 Corinthians 12:3; 1 Corinthians 15:50).
I hope this helps!
A slave of Christ,
SA
What 1st century people BELIEVED: the writer was literally IN SPIRIT; transcending the flesh so as to see and hear, literally, what was occuring in the SPIRIT realm.
Hi Shelby :)
There were/are degrees of inspiration that's for sure, one is, was inspired to write about God and oen was inspired to write BY God and even inspired to write while "in" God ( of more correctly, God's HS in Us/Them).
Paul, like most writers, wrote when under ALL forms and made it clear, sometimes.
In Acts for example we have the account of when Peter was "in the Lord" and was inspired to preach to the Gentiles ( the cloth with all forms of animals vision).
I don't think that one type is more "valid" than another UNLESS one is stating that what they are saying or saw, was from the Lord.
Paul at times stated this and other times stated that it was "his opionion".
From what I had read of the 1st and 2nd century disciples, inspiration in of itself was NOT enough of a criteria to be valid, the inspirational writings MUST SHOW the Spirit of Christ in them for them to have been consided "of Christ".
