A Question for those who have trust in the Bible/Jesus..

by The Quiet One 94 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  PSacramento

  I doubt they gave it a lot of thought when deciding on the cannon. Provenance was more important than content, the 3 synoptics had been in circulation for a long time so they all made it into the book complete with their contradictions. Who was going to argue about it anyway? Dogma was imposed by the educated elite and heretics were not tolerated.

  I am not talking about when the authoritive books were canonized but before that, the 200 years before that.

  http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/why-are-there-different-genealogies-jesus-matthew-1-and-luke-3

  The bible shows no evidence at all of any supernatural input.

  Well...even not being a bible inerrantist, I am willing to accept that SOME parts show some "divine" revelation.
• 

  The Quiet One

  Psac-- Thanks for the link. Which parts of the Bible specifically do you see evidence of divine inspiration in?
• 

  PSacramento

  Which parts of the Bible specifically do you see evidence of divine inspiration in?

  To a CERTAIN extent, Genesis ( taking into account how something like the beginning of the universe could be explained to ancient man), but mostly the prophets, wisdom writings, and the "apocalyptic" writings.
• 

  The Quiet One

  Psac -- Why , according to what you believe, would God allow people to add to/edit/lose parts of work he inspired, especially the ending to Mark, one of the only records of his life?
• 

  PSacramento

  Psac -- Why , according to what you believe, would God allow people to add to/edit/lose parts of work he inspired, especially the ending to Mark, one of the only records of his life?

  The Living Word of God is NOT static, it is NOT dependent on books, letters or anything other than itself and the HS that reveals it.

  The bible is a very important collection of books, but itis NOT more important than the living Word of God and it is only PART of hwo God reveals Himself to us.

  God revealed Himself to those BEFORE the bible ever came to be and as Jesus said, "even the rocks would proclaim his Glory".

  The works of Man MAY point the way to God but only in Part ( at best) and like any guide, itis NOT the Path nor is it the destination, merely a guide.

  The HS inspired Men to write about God and even to reveal things about God but it never depended on Man or man's works.

  So, to answer your question as to why God would "allow" the works of Man to be lost, edited and perhaps corrupted?

  Because God is NOT dependant on Man or Man's works for revelation, they are but ONE of His many methods and I would, and this is simply my humble opinion, venture to say that It ( the works of man) is not even THE method that God prefers to reveal Himself to Us.
• 

  cofty

  If god inspired men to write the bible even if it was only intended as part of his revelation to us why didn't he do a proper job of it?

  Why allow any historical inaccuracies or contradictions at all? Why not preserve it perfectly? If he wanted Mark's account of the resurrection to be part of the gospel why allow it to get lost? Surley it woud be the simplest thing for god to see to it that we still have a perfect copy of the original?
• 

  PSacramento

  We are assuming that God inspired Men to write the bible but that is not the case, God inspired Man to spread His word.

  That those teachingd became writings and those writings became "the bible" is NOT the same thing as God inspiring Man to write the bible, know what I mean?

  There is AN authority iin the bible but is is not THE authority, we sometimes forget that what POINTS to something is NOT that thing.
• 

  cofty

  That is a far more realistic position than those who try to maintain inerrancy against all odds.

  To be consitant it would be difficult to make a stand on the historicity of any particular piece of data about Jesus
• 

  PSacramento

  To be consitant it would be difficult to make a stand on the historicity of any particular piece of data about Jesus

  Well, historically speaking and considering who Jesus was if he existed ( a Hebrew peasant in Occupied Palestine), we have LOTS of info on the historical person and much of it very close to when he was around ( historically speaking).

  But there is no ONE piece of historical info that by itself proves 100% that Jesus existed.

  The mention of James the Brother of Jesus by Joesephus or the mention of "Christus" by the roman sources doesn't prove that it was Jesus of Nazareth they were speaking about, though the evidence in totallity seems to point that way.
• 

  The Quiet One

  Psac -- Thanks for all the replies (and cofty too).. I think I finally understand your position now. You don't rely on the Bible in any way, you believe the Holy Spirit will guide you to what is true and what isn't, even within a book of the Bible. Is that right? And would you have believed in the same God without having read the Gospels?