Why must the Bible be perfect?

  • 86 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Meinhard1
Meinhard1

6790

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Meinhard1
Member since 2010 • 6790 Posts

...I don't understand why most Christians believe that the Bible is perfect. I mean the new testament is just a conglomeration of the works of other Christians just like them.

I'm not trying to harp on the Bible - it's a very useful book for Christians - it's just that it seems so silly to me when people pull a quotation out of one of Paul's letters act like it has some sort of ultimate authority... it's almost like a form of idolatry. (If I had to pick a favorite Christian writer I would go with C.S. Lewis; should I start treating his works (Mere Christianity, Narnia) like some sort of religious canon?)

Of course you could insist that the Bible is the actual word of God and that he spoke directly through its authors but what basis do you really have in making this judgement? ...and even if he was speaking through these individuals I find it hard to believe that their personalities and biases wouldn't still end up finding their way the text. (I mean if you want a Biblical example look at David, Abraham and Moses - God didn't have compete control over these individuals; they made lots of mistakes.)

Honestly I'm not even sure if I would consider myself a person of faith but I think that Christians should rely more on experiencing Christ's love personally instead of modeling themselves after the writings of others. If there's any legitimacy to the notion of Christ living in us then it should be able to be experienced without reliance on a book filled with stories about dead Christians... why dwell in the past if you can experience what God is doing in the lives of Christians today?

Avatar image for chaoscougar1
chaoscougar1

37603

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#2 chaoscougar1
Member since 2005 • 37603 Posts
:cry: Not another one :( Where did you get this "most" Christians stat from? From the previous religious thread that is still going on, Atheists expect more out of Christians than Christians expect of themselves. I do not know many Christians who attempt to follow the Bible verbatim, there is only the small minority of fanatics who believe the Bible is infallible
Avatar image for Zorgax
Zorgax

384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 Zorgax
Member since 2011 • 384 Posts

Honestly I'm not even sure if I would consider myself a person of faith but I think that Christians should rely more on experiencing Christ's love personally instead of modeling themselves after the writings of others.Meinhard1

right, and most christians DO do that.

Avatar image for lonewolf604
lonewolf604

8748

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 lonewolf604
Member since 2007 • 8748 Posts
Nice post, and I myself think like this: If god really did create the world, I find it silly that he would put his creation through all these trials and tribulations, all the drama and battles that occur in the bible. You would think he would just create us, and let us be, instead of having to choose to follow him or burn in hell.
Avatar image for dracula_16
dracula_16

16589

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 26

User Lists: 0

#5 dracula_16
Member since 2005 • 16589 Posts

You brought up a good point; I highly doubt that St. Paul would've wanted his letters to be treated as infallible because he flat out says that some of his teachings are based on his own understanding of God's laws (read 1 Corinthians 7). Why treat his teachings as infallible if he himself didn't think his teachings were infallible? Paul does have a number of great ideas concerning sexual immorality, but I think that if he were alive today, he'd be alarmed to see his writings put on the same level as the Psalms and the Torah.

Christians on the liberal side may not care if the Bible has a few errors because they only care about the message of salvation that the Gospels present. On the other hand, the people who think that the Bible has to be true word-for-word have likely been taught to adhere to this tradition from a young age, and this could be why there's some animosity between catholics and evangelical protestants.

Avatar image for DJ-Lafleur
DJ-Lafleur

35604

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#6 DJ-Lafleur
Member since 2007 • 35604 Posts

Anyone who acts as if the bible is "authority" on others are probably radical christians and shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place.

Avatar image for Digital_DJ_00
Digital_DJ_00

1460

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#7 Digital_DJ_00
Member since 2005 • 1460 Posts

Anyone who acts as if the bible is "authority" on others are probably radical christians and shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place.

DJ-Lafleur



This. Thank you.

Avatar image for topsemag55
topsemag55

19063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#10 topsemag55
Member since 2007 • 19063 Posts
[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]:cry: Not another one :( Where did you get this "most" Christians stat from? From the previous religious thread that is still going on, Atheists expect more out of Christians than Christians expect of themselves. I do not know many Christians who attempt to follow the Bible verbatim, there is only the small minority of fanatics who believe the Bible is infallible

This exactly. There aren't any Christians making religious threads in OT anymore, yet for some reason the atheists here seem to feel a need to blast Christianity on a daily basis. Just once, I would like to see an atheist make a thread like this on just one religion outside of Christianity - but I don't think it can be done, it's a statistical impossibility.:P:lol:
Avatar image for Zorgax
Zorgax

384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 Zorgax
Member since 2011 • 384 Posts

[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]:cry: Not another one :( Where did you get this "most" Christians stat from? From the previous religious thread that is still going on, Atheists expect more out of Christians than Christians expect of themselves. I do not know many Christians who attempt to follow the Bible verbatim, there is only the small minority of fanatics who believe the Bible is infallibletopsemag55
This exactly. There aren't any Christians making religious threads in OT anymore, yet for some reason the athiests here seem to feel a need to blast Christianity on a daily basis.

this too

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
[QUOTE="topsemag55"] Just once, I would like to see an atheist make a thread like this on just one religion outside of Christianity - but I don't think it can be done, it's a statistical impossibility.:P:lol:

I'll be glad to take you up on that.
Avatar image for topsemag55
topsemag55

19063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#13 topsemag55
Member since 2007 • 19063 Posts
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="topsemag55"] Just once, I would like to see an atheist make a thread like this on just one religion outside of Christianity - but I don't think it can be done, it's a statistical impossibility.:P:lol:

I'll be glad to take you up on that.

I would definitely read it - I miss the old days a few years ago, when yourself and Pianist would keep the debates going in OT. Off-topic, but is your break going to be over soon? It's so weird not seeing your mod badges.
Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36092 Posts

As a christian I don't really think it is perfect. It may have been at one time, but humans have rewritten it many times and even thrown entire chapters out. Kinda hard to argue it's perfect when imperfect beings have altered it so much throughout the years.

Avatar image for topsemag55
topsemag55

19063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#15 topsemag55
Member since 2007 • 19063 Posts

As a christian I don't really think it is perfect. It may have been at one time, but humans have rewritten it many times and even thrown entire chapters out. Kinda hard to argue it's perfect when imperfect beings have altered it so much throughout the years.

Serraph105
After the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, biblical scholars took the scroll for the book of Isaiah, and compared it to the King James Version. It read verbatim, with only the difference of a few insignificant words due to language differences. All of the major concepts were intact in the King James.
Avatar image for TentacleMayor
TentacleMayor

1469

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#16 TentacleMayor
Member since 2008 • 1469 Posts
[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]:cry: Not another one :( Where did you get this "most" Christians stat from? From the previous religious thread that is still going on, Atheists expect more out of Christians than Christians expect of themselves. I do not know many Christians who attempt to follow the Bible verbatim, there is only the small minority of fanatics who believe the Bible is infallible

This exactly. There aren't any Christians making religious threads in OT anymore, yet for some reason the atheists here seem to feel a need to blast Christianity on a daily basis. Just once, I would like to see an atheist make a thread like this on just one religion outside of Christianity - but I don't think it can be done, it's a statistical impossibility.:P:lol:

QFT. Atheists are some of the most arrogant gits I know of. No one's trying to convert me to Christianity, but atheists? They're the trolls of religion.
Avatar image for Overlord93
Overlord93

12602

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 Overlord93
Member since 2007 • 12602 Posts
If I believed in the religion/the bible I would see it as a metaphor, and a concept rather than a truth
Avatar image for DarthRoel
DarthRoel

1058

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 DarthRoel
Member since 2010 • 1058 Posts
people take the bible to serieus instead of loooking at the inner message
Avatar image for Mcspanky37
Mcspanky37

1693

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 Mcspanky37
Member since 2010 • 1693 Posts

Lol the Bible just makes me laugh.

Avatar image for spawnassasin
spawnassasin

18702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#20 spawnassasin
Member since 2006 • 18702 Posts

people take the bible to serieus instead of loooking at the inner messageDarthRoel

yeah like rape

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.-Deuteronomy 22:28-29

oh yeah and the story of lot

Avatar image for topsemag55
topsemag55

19063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#21 topsemag55
Member since 2007 • 19063 Posts
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.-Deuteronomy 22:28-29

oh yeah and the story of lot

spawnassasin
You're forgetting the directives of the Old Testament are meant for the Hebrews - the New Testament applies to Christianity insofar as behavior is concerned.
Avatar image for spawnassasin
spawnassasin

18702

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#22 spawnassasin
Member since 2006 • 18702 Posts

[QUOTE="spawnassasin"] If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.-Deuteronomy 22:28-29

oh yeah and the story of lot

topsemag55

You're forgetting the directives of the Old Testament are meant for the Hebrews - the New Testament applies to Christianity insofar as behavior is concerned.

does that include the 10 commandments too

also

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)

Avatar image for kev_stevens67
kev_stevens67

616

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 kev_stevens67
Member since 2010 • 616 Posts

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="spawnassasin"] If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.-Deuteronomy 22:28-29

oh yeah and the story of lot

spawnassasin

You're forgetting the directives of the Old Testament are meant for the Hebrews - the New Testament applies to Christianity insofar as behavior is concerned.

does that include the 10 commandments too

also

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)

The Ten Commandments are mentioned in the NT as well - just FYI.

Whoever posts this verse in the scriptures would do well to read the remaining Sermon on the Mount. This is where Jesus teachings replace and transcend some of the aspects of the Law of Moses (OT Laws).

Avatar image for topsemag55
topsemag55

19063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#24 topsemag55
Member since 2007 • 19063 Posts

does that include the 10 commandments too

also

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17)

spawnassasin
The OT was written because the Hebrews didn't want a prophet telling them what to do, they wanted laws instead, and the OT is the 10 commandments plus a lot of other rules. The Matthew verse is correct, but you're reading it wrong. Christ came to fulfill the prophecies in the OT about Himself, and He was to be the Lamb, the last sacrifice. Remember, Christians revere the OT because the formal name is Judeo-Christianity, but Christians are not under the law but under grace. Christians acknowledge all 66 books, but the Hebrews laws apply only to them.
Avatar image for Blue-Sky
Blue-Sky

10381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#25 Blue-Sky
Member since 2005 • 10381 Posts

I see people write off these people using words like minority and sure they might be right.

But when one radical member of that christian minority happens to be Governor, then it affects a lot people.

Avatar image for imaps3fanboy
imaps3fanboy

11169

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 imaps3fanboy
Member since 2009 • 11169 Posts
It's not perfect. In fact, it's almost entirely fiction :)
Avatar image for FUloin33
FUloin33

477

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#27 FUloin33
Member since 2011 • 477 Posts
It's not perfect. In fact, it's almost entirely fiction :)imaps3fanboy
*nods*
Avatar image for CBR600-RR
CBR600-RR

9695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 CBR600-RR
Member since 2008 • 9695 Posts

This is relevant.

Avatar image for imaps3fanboy
imaps3fanboy

11169

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 imaps3fanboy
Member since 2009 • 11169 Posts

This is relevant.

CBR600-RR
And you say I post bad youtube links?
Avatar image for topsemag55
topsemag55

19063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#30 topsemag55
Member since 2007 • 19063 Posts
[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]It's not perfect. In fact, it's almost entirely fiction :)

I'll have to see a credible link for that, not the Onion.:P:lol:
Avatar image for imaps3fanboy
imaps3fanboy

11169

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 imaps3fanboy
Member since 2009 • 11169 Posts

[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]It's not perfect. In fact, it's almost entirely fiction :)topsemag55
I'll have to see a credible link for that, not the Onion.:P:lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

There ya go

Avatar image for topsemag55
topsemag55

19063

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#32 topsemag55
Member since 2007 • 19063 Posts

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]It's not perfect. In fact, it's almost entirely fiction :)imaps3fanboy

I'll have to see a credible link for that, not the Onion.:P:lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

There ya go

Ever seen how many people on here debate the veracity of Wikipedia?:lol: It's like a pendulum - people buy into it if it agrees with their position, and I'm guilty of that too.:P
Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#33 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
Because objective literalism has turned modern religion into something it was never meant to be. Instead of an "art" that differs for every individual who experiences it, it has been turned into an "alternative" for science... and yet, its roots are directly based in 16th-18th century science, where those who helped form the modern scientific institution were out to use science to prove religion right, but only found out that it couldn't. People like Newton based their entire scientific efforts on proving God exists objectively. Before the Renaissance, religion (mythos) and science (logos) were two separate but complimentary ways of viewing the world we live in. The former was the moral, artistic side of human nature that drove us to think beyond what we knew... while the latter was a direct, cold way of seeing the world that allowed us to understand what is right in front of us. Anyone who knows anything about early Christian theology knows that to talk about God as an objective "thing" is blasphemous. God goes beyond all conception, all human understanding... which is why the contemplation of such a state of being causes the diminishing of the "self" and the person who can connect with "God" becomes more like Jesus, concerned only about others and making the world a better place. To say that it "requires" someone intellectually assent to a "creed" in order to be "Christian" is a modern creation, and patently false. Some of the greatest Christian thinkers are spinning in their graves because of this idea that to be "Christian" you have to "accept without understanding." Faith isn't blind acceptance of a set of beliefs... it is trust in the ability that one will be able to understand what "God" is, and be able to discover for oneself a connection to "his" true nature.
Avatar image for imaps3fanboy
imaps3fanboy

11169

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 imaps3fanboy
Member since 2009 • 11169 Posts
[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"] I'll have to see a credible link for that, not the Onion.:P:lol:topsemag55

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

There ya go

Ever seen how many people on here debate the veracity of Wikipedia?:lol: It's like a pendulum - people but into it if it agrees with their position, and I'm guilty of that too.:P

Hehe.. I probably rely on Wikipedia too much. I'm to lazy to find another legitimate source
Avatar image for zeldaluff
zeldaluff

3387

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#35 zeldaluff
Member since 2008 • 3387 Posts

Ever seen how many people on here debate the veracity of Wikipedia?:lol: It's like a pendulum - people buy into it if it agrees with their position, and I'm guilty of that too.:Ptopsemag55

I'm also guilty of that. I even used it in an essay once. My teacher said he accepted wikipedia because it was .org and not .com :lol:

Avatar image for mindstorm
mindstorm

15255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 mindstorm
Member since 2003 • 15255 Posts
The Scriptures claim to be the word of God unlike the normal writings of man. Also, those who wrote the Bible would refer to the rest of the Bible as divine Scripture. Peter in the New Testament, for example, considered Paul's writings to be sacred no less than the texts of the Old Testament. There are even good books that I believe to be theological correct such as John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress but this person was no Apostle nor Prophet, he was a human who wrote as according to his understanding of the biblical text of the Bible. Heck, Jesus even stated that he was, in fact, the Word of God made flesh. This alone gives the notion that there is something to be understood that is different than Homer's Odyssey or Josephus' writings. Jesus after his resurrection on the road to Emmaus noted that all Scripture testifies of him. As such, people like that of Martin Luther have come to understand that the Gospel is the Word of God and the Word of God is the Gospel. Both are testimonies of the death and burial of Jesus Christ, yes? I boldly assert that the Old Testament also teaches nothing any less different than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#37 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

OMG this incessant Christian bashing I CANT TAKE IT!

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
Atheists expect more out of Christians than Christians expect of themselves. chaoscougar1
Maybe that's the problem :P
Avatar image for mindstorm
mindstorm

15255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 mindstorm
Member since 2003 • 15255 Posts
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]Because objective literalism has turned modern religion into something it was never meant to be. Instead of an "art" that differs for every individual who experiences it, it has been turned into an "alternative" for science... and yet, its roots are directly based in 16th-18th century science, where those who helped form the modern scientific institution were out to use science to prove religion right, but only found out that it couldn't. People like Newton based their entire scientific efforts on proving God exists objectively. Before the Renaissance, religion (mythos) and science (logos) were two separate but complimentary ways of viewing the world we live in. The former was the moral, artistic side of human nature that drove us to think beyond what we knew... while the latter was a direct, cold way of seeing the world that allowed us to understand what is right in front of us. Anyone who knows anything about early Christian theology knows that to talk about God as an objective "thing" is blasphemous. God goes beyond all conception, all human understanding... which is why the contemplation of such a state of being causes the diminishing of the "self" and the person who can connect with "God" becomes more like Jesus, concerned only about others and making the world a better place. To say that it "requires" someone intellectually assent to a "creed" in order to be "Christian" is a modern creation, and patently false. Some of the greatest Christian thinkers are spinning in their graves because of this idea that to be "Christian" you have to "accept without understanding." Faith isn't blind acceptance of a set of beliefs... it is trust in the ability that one will be able to understand what "God" is, and be able to discover for oneself a connection to "his" true nature.

There are a few things I agree with but some things I do not. 1. Jesus referred to himself as the logos. He is the cause of all creation and the one through whom "logic" came to be. 2. God the Father is indeed not a physical thing that be contained within the creation. However, Jesus is the physical and visible incarnation of the immaterial and invisible God. As a note, what you speak of in this paragraph seems to be entering a lot of Eastern religious and mysticism thought into Christianity rather than viewing Christianity for what it is. 3. As far as creeds go, one does not have to, say, agree with the five points of Calvinism in order to be a Christian. However, if one openly disagrees with the Nicene Creed then one is simply not a Christian. This creed is something that Catholics and Protestants can actually agree upon.
Avatar image for mindstorm
mindstorm

15255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 mindstorm
Member since 2003 • 15255 Posts
[QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]Atheists expect more out of Christians than Christians expect of themselves. kuraimen
Maybe that's the problem :P

I will agree that we Christians are very often idiots that need to actually follow Christ as we claim we do.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]Ever seen how many people on here debate the veracity of Wikipedia?:lol: It's like a pendulum - people buy into it if it agrees with their position, and I'm guilty of that too.:Pzeldaluff

I'm also guilty of that. I even used it in an essay once. My teacher said he accepted wikipedia because it was .org and not .com :lol:

It depends really. Wikipedia allows for people to make references to sources. I have no problem with people citing Wikipedia as long as the right sources are in place. The same with any source for any kind of information.
Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="chaoscougar1"]Atheists expect more out of Christians than Christians expect of themselves. mindstorm
Maybe that's the problem :P

I will agree that we Christians are very often idiots that need to actually follow Christ as we claim we do.

Well to be fair anyone can call himself a christian even if he has nothing to do with christians. But I find that many of the vocal ones are of that kind. There are true christians out there though and they have my complete respect as any other religious person that uses religion in a good way.
Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#43 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

1. Jesus referred to himself as the logos. He is the cause of all creation and the one through whom "logic" came to be.mindstorm

What do you mean by your last sentence ("and....to be").

Is the meaning "logic" of the word "logos" taken into consideration here due to that being one meaning of it or is there some other source to suggest that Jesus was labeled as "logos" in the sense of the one through whom logic came to be?

Because I always thought that the word "logos" when referring to Christ had the meaning of "words/speech" (as in he is the one through whom God speaks, sort of) and "reason" as in the "reason why", the cause for many things.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#44 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
[QUOTE="mindstorm"]There are a few things I agree with but some things I do not. 1. Jesus referred to himself as the logos. He is the cause of all creation and the one through whom "logic" came to be. 2. God the Father is indeed not a physical thing that be contained within the creation. However, Jesus is the physical and visible incarnation of the immaterial and invisible God. As a note, what you speak of in this paragraph seems to be entering a lot of Eastern religious and mysticism thought into Christianity rather than viewing Christianity for what it is. 3. As far as creeds go, one does not have to, say, agree with the five points of Calvinism in order to be a Christian. However, if one openly disagrees with the Nicene Creed then one is simply not a Christian. creed is something that Catholics and Protestants can actually agree upon.

1. Big-L Logos, not logos (reason, or wisdom) as it was seen by the Greeks. He was the incarnate "divine Wisdom" similar to Sophia and the Shekinah. The presence of God on Earth that worked among the people. 2. This is a matter of faith, and I haven't seen all the major theologians agree with it. All I talked about was Christian and Western monotheistic mysticism... nothing of it is Eastern. It bears striking similarities though. 3. The Nicaean Creed being something injected into the religion several hundred years after the death of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament. Something created by later thinkers who also decided which books are "canon" and which are not. I would think Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Christians would really like to have a word with you about this as well. It really does astound me how ingrained these ideas are in modern Christianity. But then again, the mystics (like Augustine or Teresa of Avila) have never been popular among the mainstream.
Avatar image for mindstorm
mindstorm

15255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 mindstorm
Member since 2003 • 15255 Posts

[QUOTE="mindstorm"] 1. Jesus referred to himself as the logos. He is the cause of all creation and the one through whom "logic" came to be.Teenaged

What do you mean by your last sentence ("and....to be").

Is the meaning "logic" of the word "logos" taken into consideration here due to that being one meaning of it or is there some other source to suggest that Jesus was labeled as "logos" in the sense of the one through whom logic came to be?

Because I always thought that the word "logos" when referring to Christ had the meaning of "words/speech" (as in he is the one through whom God speaks, sort of) and "reason" as in the "reason why", the cause for many things.

As I understand it, the word in the Koine Greek not only meant "word" but also "reason." In Ancient Greek philosophy the word would be used in various ways but would often be the purpose of philosophy. Justin Martyr perhaps spoke most of this, saying that because Jesus was the logos, he was the rational power from which all creation came to be.
Avatar image for fueled-system
fueled-system

6529

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 fueled-system
Member since 2008 • 6529 Posts

why are the majority of Christians generalized in so many religious threads....

Not everybody who is Christian believes in every piece of the Bible in fact I know quite a few who do not...

Avatar image for mindstorm
mindstorm

15255

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 mindstorm
Member since 2003 • 15255 Posts
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"] 3. The Nicaean Creed being something injected into the religion several hundred years after the death of Jesus and the writing of the New Testament. Something created by later thinkers who also decided which books are "canon" and which are not. I would think Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Christians would really like to have a word with you about this as well. It really does astound me how ingrained these ideas are in modern Christianity. But then again, the mystics (like Augustine or Teresa of Avila) have never been popular among the mainstream.

These things are perhaps what I disagree with most. I am very much under the impression that the Nicene Creed was not created for the purpose of deciding doctrine but was merely a group of people coming together to figure out what they had in common. The same goes for how the texts of Scripture came be be understood as Scripture. As I noted previously, even Peter in the First Century believed Paul's writings to be divine Scripture. As you will notice, many of the councils and creeds come about when there are heresies in their midst. While previously not having certain things written, when someone says something against the general consensus then a new creed or council takes place. This happens with such people as Marcion and Arius come to teach heretical views within the church.
Avatar image for CaveJohnson1
CaveJohnson1

1714

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 CaveJohnson1
Member since 2011 • 1714 Posts

Anybody educated in the religion at all knows there are flaws, large sections changed, books added/removed.

This will continue to be the case.

i.e. the gosbal of eve being removed, the ressurection story being added in the 3rd century, Jesus being god literally voted on, ect. ect.

Avatar image for Teenaged
Teenaged

31764

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#50 Teenaged
Member since 2007 • 31764 Posts

You won't get British humour because:

CBR600-RR

The problem with me is that sometimes their accent was so heavy that I couldnt understand what they were saying. :(