by Shining One 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
The site is listed as a Christian Apologetics Organization, and that, I feel is a good thing.
Because, anyone who seriously accredits this overwhelmingly beautiful and diverse universe and the indescribably marvelous expressions of life therein to some primitive desert deity, has a hell of a lot of apologizing to do.
j
Daunt,
You better bring more than a peashooter to a gunfight...
How is it possible that there can be any lost books of the Bible?
Is it possible that in the first sense of the word Bible that the books could be lost? Wait a minute, if God is supernaturally overseeing it, then God is supernaturally involved in seeing that His book gets written down and preserved. So we have God's supernatural protection if it has a supernatural quality to it. You may say that the supernatural element is bogus, but you can see that from this sense of the definition that it's not really possible to think that God could lose His own book. "But man wrote it...." Can you make your dog sit? Of course. If you a mere man can make your dog sit, can't an infinite God oversee the care of His Word? It doesn't matter if man or monkeys were responsible for taking care of it.
Maybe the Bible isn't supernatural, it's a statement of beliefs of the leaders of the church. Okay, if that's the case then who has the final word on which books belong in the Bible? The leaders of the early church. Therefore, by very definition any books that they cast into outer darkness are not part of the Bible. It's their decision to decide which books represent their beliefs. And if they say the Gospel of Thomas isn't our book and somebody else picks it up two thousand years later and say it's a lost book of the Bible, then it's fair to ask "In what sense is it a lost book of the Bible?" It might be a lost book of antiquity, a great archaeological find, a wonderful piece of literature, but a lost book of the Bible? No.
The Bible has to be either a supernatural book, or a non-supernatural book. If it's supernatural -- if God is responsible for its writing, it's transmission and its survival -- then God, being God, does the job right. God doesn't make mistakes, he doesn't forget things, he doesn't get confused about what is true and what is false, and He isn't absent-minded -- He doesn't lose his lessons.
If the Bible is not supernatural -- as many will contend, especially those who claim to have found lost books -- we have a different problem. By what standard do we claim these are bonafide lost books of the Bible? If, from a human perspective, the Bible is that collection of writings that reflect the beliefs of the leaders of early Christianity, then those writings they discard are not parts of the Bible by very definition. It's like writing a book of your personal beliefs from a stack of ideas you've collected over the years and then have someone rummage through your trash to find other beliefs you didn't include and then claim that these were your secret or lost beliefs. You say, "No, they're not my beliefs; that's why they're in the trash. If they were were really mine, they'd be in the book.
The irony is that many of the the "lost books" advocates make the point that these books they've rediscovered, books like the so-called Gospel of Thomas, were missing because the church fathers "suppressed" them, which is another way of saying the early Christians threw them out, trashed them. And the accusation is true. They did. Critics think this strengthens their case. It doesn't; it destroys it, because it proves that these books were simply not accepted by the leaders as representative of their beliefs. So therefore it can't be their Bible.
The Jesus Seminar people are taking a little different tack. They reject the idea that the Bible has supernatural origins. They suggest that since it's just man's opinion anyway, we should have a recall vote on the Bible and fix the defects. We should reconvene and reshuffle the deck, tossing some books out and including others to reflect what the church now believes about spiritual truth, which means "what the Jesus Seminar now believes about spiritual truth." They are not using the "lost books of the Bible" tack.
So regardless of your view of the Bible -- supernatural or natural -- there is no sense in which it makes any sense to talk of lost books of the Bible. Ergo it's impossible, rationally -- nothing to do with spiritual commitments at all -- that there can be anything like lost books of the Bible. The phrase just doesn't make any sense.
Just a little 'cut and paste' from a website that you obviously have not taken the time to study. How about if I post one article a day and you try to refute each one?
Rex
Oh Daunt.......
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/comparisons/realmurd.htm
Who are the real murderers, Atheism or Christianity? Go for it.
Rex
Old Soul,
>I just read your creed, Shining One. For all your animus at jgnat, I thought your creed would surely support your venom. Wow! I was surprised! No wonder you didn't want her seeing your religion's creed.
Do you mean the 'statement of faith' from the web site?
http://www.str.org/about/statemen.htm
What are you yapping about? This is a apologetics web site, not a religion.
Rex
>I notice there are no black brothers. Is that why you are called Shining One?
You have never seen one of our beloved black brothers sweating in the sun? Black people shine better than whites!
Rex
rexanne,
Which logical fallacy did you just use in that post....anyone care to point it out to our esteemed wise guy? I have seen you use the so many logical fallacies (in many ways) and that is one reason that I posted the link.
why thank you! a thread just for me?! you shouldn't have honey. but i would like you to show me my "logical fallacies". i promise that if there are any, i will admit to them. and you wanna know why rex? because i don't have to worry about being right. i don't have to lie for any diety. if i made a logical blunder somewhere, then i did. it doesn't matter! the nice thing is that i don't have to go to hell for it. but seriously, point them out if you can. you will get a real apology for me for every real fallacy you point out. and please, none of this: "you don't believe in Jesus and that's a fallacy!". because that's not a fallacy.
Now, which hospital are you staying in and why do they let you use a computer?
i am at Saint Shinning One's Memorial of Mary's Bootie. and they don't let me use the computer. i am at the nurses station...BWA HA HA HA!
How do you type with a straitjacket on?
i use my teeth...and i think jesus is helping me.
Sincerely,
TS
I think there are many more countries than the US I could have been born in and still been a Christian.
I would point out the logical fallacy tetrapod made, but I wonder if Rex knows what it is.
Shining
I saw a Christian defence of 'pro-life' mentioned there.
Could you explain this to me in detail?
Where in the Bible is abortion specifically prohibited? The Mosaic Law is very detailed, going as far as to give rules about the trim and composition of garments and how certain combinations of cooking ingredients were prohibited. As abortion was known and practised in antiquity, it should be specifically mentioned. Many neigbouring people also had rules against murder, yet practised abortion, so the Mosaic commandment against murder would not serve to provide a seperation or distinction from the surrounding people in itself. Only if it went further in an unambiguous manner, by specifically mentioning abortion, could it do so in this regard (if indeed god is opposed to abortion).
I am wary of falling victim to the pronouncement of Pharisaical hypocrites who add to god's law, but am sure the reply from someone of your character will clear up any doubts I have.
>I saw a Christian defence of 'pro-life' mentioned there. Could you explain this to me in detail?
Where in the Bible is abortion specifically prohibited? The Mosaic Law is very detailed, going as far as to give rules about the trim and composition of garments and how certain combinations of cooking ingredients were prohibited. As abortion was known and practised in antiquity, it should be specifically mentioned. Many neigbouring people also had rules against murder, yet practised abortion, so the Mosaic commandment against murder would not serve to provide a seperation or distinction from the surrounding people in itself. Only if it went further in an unambiguous manner, by specifically mentioning abortion, could it do so in this regard (if indeed god is opposed to abortion).
I don't know that it speaks clearly to abortion. I also don't know how common it was and I don't much care. It is not relevant to the issue. Science has determined that abortion is the ending of a human life, a completely defensless human life at that. If that doesn't tell you it is murder then what will? We are no longer restricted by the law, civil or ceremonial. We have the conviction laid upon our hearts.
>I am wary of falling victim to the pronouncement of Pharisaical hypocrites who add to god's law, but am sure the reply from someone of your character will clear up any doubts I have.
OK
Rex
