Greatest Sect of Christianity

[Felch]

How can I even talk to a Catholic about what the Bible says. At least Ben used to be a Protestant. There's a reason why the church doesn't want you to read the Bible. So they can lie to you. Read you're Bible, especially the Gospel and you will answer your own question.

The normal method is [Name of Book] [Number of Chapter]:[Number of Verse]. But since the Bible was written by experts, such as prophets and evangelists, you'll probably have a tough time finding the bit where it says not to trust experts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kid, your cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.

And here I was thinking that others were giving Christianity a bad name - I hadn't seen anything yet apparently.

[Elok]

The idea that the Bible has errors originated during the scientific revolution. Oh yeah that's some tradition there LOL. Now consider the tradition of believing the Bible is THE WORD OF GOD ERROR FREE. And most people still believe that but this website is full of hacks.

The Bible itself identifies Jesus as "the Word of God." That title's taken, find another one.

[Kidlicious]

The normal method is [Name of Book] [Number of Chapter]:[Number of Verse]. But since the Bible was written by experts, such as prophets and evangelists, you'll probably have a tough time finding the bit where it says not to trust experts.

LOL you really have absolutely no idea about prophets.

[Kidlicious]

The Bible itself identifies Jesus as "the Word of God." That title's taken, find another one.

So the Bible itself claims to be false? You belong in a mental hospital. "Jesus is the Word" is the same thing as The Word is Jesus.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's a logical fallacy (hint: you've added another "Word").

[Kidlicious]

Kid, your cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.

You're the hack master. No you and Imran are. I wouldn't be partial.

[Kidlicious]

That's a logical fallacy (hint: you've added another "Word").

No you have hack.

[Elok]

Thousands of experts who believe in tradition NOT reason. Tradition is not the accumulation of reason. It's oppossed to reason. It tells you not to think.

And if you're talking about other fields THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN TRADITION.

Of course they do. If a man wants to be a doctor, does he just start dissecting things to see for himself how all the parts fit together? Or does he buy medical textbooks and try to memorize them all? No, he goes to medical school to learn his craft from others--their tradition. The same is true for lawyers, artists, musicians, plumbers, accountants, and everyone else. Everybody benefits from a vast, accumulated field of knowledge.

[Lorizael]

You're the hack master. No you and Imran are. I wouldn't be partial.

KoDT

[Elok]

So the Bible itself claims to be false? You belong in a mental hospital. "Jesus is the Word" is the same thing as The Word is Jesus.

Yes, A=B is the same as B=A. I'm fine with it either way. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth." Maybe that's not exact, I'm going from memory here, but it's close. The Bible plainly identifies Jesus as "the Word."

[Elok]

Now you simply don't know what you're talking about. This was said by a pre nicean church father "The Holy Scripture is the foundation and lively spring, containing in all sufficiency and abundance the pure Water of Life." ONE OF YOUR EXPERTS SAID THAT.

Well, you didn't cite, but it hardly matters, because nowhere in there does he say anything about inerrancy or infallibility or what-have-you. I'm not trying to denigrate the scripture here, but you're making an idol of it.

OK Elok, assume it's not God's word. Then are you saying that God's truth is revealed by expert's?

No, it's revealed by God by whatever means He chooses to employ. The first several centuries of Christians didn't even have the Bible; they might have scriptures, but these would vary from church to church and often contained deuterocanonical or even heretical works. A single church in Egypt or Macedonia might have Matthew, John, the letters of St. Ignatius and a whole heap of gnostic rubbish like the "Gospel of Judas." The bible as we know it was formed by a long, gradual process of consensus among the church hierarchy--or, if you prefer, among the experts. The bible itself is, in a sense, a human tradition, or at least the product of human tradition.

[Jon Miller]

No, it's revealed by God by whatever means He chooses to employ. The first several centuries of Christians didn't even have the Bible; they might have scriptures, but these would vary from church to church and often contained deuterocanonical or even heretical works. A single church in Egypt or Macedonia might have Matthew, John, the letters of St. Ignatius and a whole heap of gnostic rubbish like the "Gospel of Judas." The bible as we know it was formed by a long, gradual process of consensus among the church hierarchy--or, if you prefer, among the experts. The bible itself is, in a sense, a human tradition, or at least the product of human tradition.

This is a lot less the case than you are implying.

Yes, some works which are now not held in high esteem (like 'Shepard of XXXX') were held in high esteem. But there wasn't so much the hodgepodge that you are implying.

Gnostic works were mostly held in esteem by the gnostic churches. And while there was a lot more theological differences 30-300 AD than there was 300-1300 AD, these were mostly all based on the books of the Bible that we have today.

The early church writers that we have pretty much all esteemed the books we have today, there wasn't a huge set of writings that different church fathers considered as scripture.

In fact, it is the case that the early church in India (Mar Thomas) only had one book (Matthew), but when they connected again with mediterranean Christianity in ~200 AD they happily accepted the other books of the traditional Bible.

You have listened to some 'experts' without studying about the matter yourself.

JM

[Elok]

There's a lot of "mostly" in that post. Did ANYONE have the Bible, as we know it today--even out of order, or with different manuscripts--in 250 AD? No. The Church predates the New Testament by a significant margin.

[Barnabas]

This says deuteronomy 24: 1-4

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

2And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

3And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;

4Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

This said Jesus

"And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery." —Mark 1:1-12

Is Jesus saying that those versicles of Deuteronomy were not divinely inspired?