Since the bible was put together after the christian 'church' was formed, since the OT was largely superceded by the teachings of Jesus and finally since the New Testament was largely a series of letters to individual churches - why do we put so much credence on a set of translated scriptures written by a culture seperated from our own by 2000 years? And as a back up to this question - if the canon of scriptures are clearly not the sole basis of the early christian church - what should the church be built on?
A question for bible believers...
by Qcmbr 10 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
holly
Well I still believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and thats the material he wanted in it - a selection of enough stuff for us to live by. Many would disagree with me, i know. I dont have a problem with the Bible or believing its Gods word, i just wonder at the interpretations from the original languages, and then the individual interpretations of the church, jws etc. i can see why so many people are confused. for every scripture that points to hell being death, someone can quote something that makes it look like a place of torture. which then means we have to look at other stuff to qualify it all. it makes ma brain hurt!
i wish i could read hebrew and greek!
holly
-
M.J.
John 5:39,40: You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
I think issues of morality are pretty clear-cut.
Beyond that, the focus is on the person and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
-
Big Dog
Qcmbr, I started a thread a couple of days ago along very much the same lines where I said that I had a chance to discuss the issue with a Jesuit Priest. The doctrine is called Sola Scriptura, the idea that everything one needs is found in the bible and thus the church came from the bible. The Catholic/Orthodox view is that the bible was a product of the church and that many practices and beliefs were handed down by Jesus and the apostles (why they make such a big deal out of the claim of apostolic succession) in the form of tradition and church teaching guided by the Holy Spirit (ie. the keys to the kingdom given to the apostle). So, the priest's answer to your question would be a combination of scripture along with the traditions of the church that have been handed down since the time of Christ. I'm not saying I buy this, I'm just relating one answer I was given to a similar question.
-
abbagail
...what should the church be built on? ...
THE ROCK, of course.
Let the Holy Spirit be your guide and teacher into all the truth.
Seriously, I dunno it all anymore, but I definitely liked/agree with everything Holly said. And yea, it makes my brain hurt, too. But I still believe in the Logos (the print-kind and the Jesus-kind).
I've also been thinking the same thing lately about wishing I could read the greek and hebrew myself. I'm tired of looking up the root meanings of the translated words! :-/
As for tradition, naaaa. That's where the Jews and then the CC got itself tangled up, imho.
/ag -
Leolaia
...what should the church be built on? ...
THE ROCK, of course.
Can you smell what The Rock is cooking? -
frankiespeakin
why do we put so much credence on a set of translated scriptures written by a culture seperated from our own by 2000 years?
Fooled into thinking it is God's word that's why.
It took me about two years after leaving the Jw's until I was able to look at the bible more unbiasedly. All the indoctrination I recieved from the WT had to be unraveled to finally get it,, namely that the bible god is a myth just like Mar, Jupiter, and Uranus are myths. I think one reason for my holding on to the bible as god's word was the tons of misinformation cramed in my head which takes time to sort out.
And as a back up to this question - if the canon of scriptures are clearly not the sole basis of the early christian church - what should the church be built on?
Well since it is all myth,,it should not be built on anything that's not true. The church should just fade away like all the other past religions that people don't take seriously any more 2000 years is about long enough for the church,,I don't see it last very much longer.
Eventually (if we don't wipe out the whole human in the near future through our short sightedness) I see the Christian faith as well as the Mormon faith just fadeing out and in time forgotten. Man will always look for spirituality,,it is a human need that will never die,,but I don't see this need being filled by of the biblical oriented religions,,maybe we will have some other more efficiant means of filling the void of seperation from "God" or the "Self" or what ever you want to call it,, maybe a new technique or an improvement of some old ones that alter consciousness might be in the near future,, or perhaps the whole human race will just evolve to a higher level awareness and have a natural connection to God that side steps and need for teachers of and other professionals to guide them in a relationship to the divine Self or God.
Either way these religions are growing past thier usefulness.
-
gumby
Frankiespeakin.....you ain't supposed ta be speakin right now cuz this thread is for believers ya damn knucklehead!
Gumby
-
upside/down
Uranus are myths
My anus is no myth... it's in the Bible! lol...
u/d
-
Leolaia
The Greek word for "heaven" in the NT is, incidentally, ouranos....the same spelling as the god Ouranos, Latinized as Uranus. The name derives probably from the Sumerian god Anu. The word for "abyss" in the NT, Greek abussos, also derives from Akkadian and ultimately from Sumerian Abzu. Both words are demythologized in Greek in that they do not necessarily refer to deities, but they have "pagan origins". ;P