Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
AlanGurvey said:I find myself believing that the Torah and oral Torah (Talmud) to be the true words and voice of HaShem!
Jayhawker Soule said:Read Maimonides.
No*s said:Dawny,
Since the topic of the Apocrypha came up, albeit briefly, it begs a question in the reverse. Why do you believe that the Bible in the form you hold is accurate, when it is a revision of the traditional Christian Bible? Another way of putting it, is why is it complete and infallible now when it wasn't until the Reformers decided to change it (partially to save money of all things)?
Thanks
Hey Dawny, I should have guessed I'd see you here!
I was just....floored. I was like, these chicks are just some of those extreme right wing freaks you know? But they aren't. Much of christianity truly believes that only the elect go to heaven, everyone else goes directly to hell without passing go, god doesn't even really love us, we are sinful abominable creatures and the only "good news" is that SOME of us are predestined to escape the lake of fire.
Have you ever visited religious tolerance .org? You'll find that christianity has just about every belief under the sun. THe bible is interpreted different ways even by the literalists. And for the christians who view the bible allegorically you find even more variance.
No, no, no! Those ARE the FUNDAMENTAL teachings of "Real Christianity". Those who most call fundamentalists should be renamed "extremists". They ADD to God's word and take it to places God never wanted it to go.JillianMarie77 said:Things like Love. Charity. Compassion. Forgiveness. Repentance. Reconciliation. None of it was the REAL christianity.
In that case...dawny0826 said:Sorry about that. I should have specified.
Anyone is really welcome to answer.
Why would a Buddhist ask this question? Buddhist scripture is full of metaphor. Often times metaphor conveys something more truthfully than literal description.St0ne said:why would the bible not be completely litteral, why does it need metaphorical messages?
How do I interpret that? Salvation requires practice/works, not just "knowing" the right people.dawny0826 said:I'm truly interested for input from those who do not believe that the Bible is the infallible Word of God...when you read scripture...like the scripture below, what do you make of it? What is your personal interpretation? What do you think Jesus is saying to us? Do you read this as something literal or figurative?
In this scripture, Jesus is traveling to Jerusalem, and he's asked "Lord, are there few who are saved?"
And this is his reply...
"Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying "Lord, Lord, open for us, and He will answer and say to you, "I do not know you, where you are from." Then you will begin to say, "We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets." But He will say, "I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, and all you workers of iniquity." There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and yourselves thrust out."
Luke 13:24-28 (NKJV)
dawny0826 said:Did any of the change that the Reformers brought about change the heart of God's word?
After all the change...the heart of God's Word remains the same...Jesus Christ.
On it's own...and as is...the Bible (which I view as spirit) teaches me WHO to live for and HOW to live. I do not need another Holy Book nor do I need to worry myself with historial accuracies. The Bible is more than sufficient for me.
I'm able to to establish a relationship with Christ and to grow spiritually by reading the Bible as it is. I believe very much that the Bible is the Word of God. God can make NO mistakes. And so, I view the Bible as an infallible guide.
So, a question for you: why did you pick this particular passage? Why did you think this one would inform you of how we interpret the bible more than some other passage?
No*s said:Actually, yes it does. The Heart, Christ, can be gradually distorted. The Reformers began their act as an act of rebellion, and removing books from the Bible is an act of rebellion in itself. This spirit of rebellion cannot help but distort the knowledge of Christ and is passed down from generation to generation.
Worse still, some of the knowledge about Christ's mercy and doctrine is eliminated. The most blaring example is the omission of II Maccabees. II Maccabees, in chapter 12, contains information directly pertaining to the efficacy of prayer for the dead and the nature of eternal rest. In it, Judas presents a sacrafice for the dead who had sinned and cut themselves off, in the hope of redeeming them. The standard argument against this goes is "This teaches purgatory!" but that is not the case; it predates purgatory. Even if it had, it's still a case of Reformers eliminating a book, because it disagrees with their doctrine. It, further, is a doctrine that extends the love and redemptive action of God even into the afterlife.
That very muchly does affect the heart of Christianity. Similarly the Deuterocanonicals contain further explanations on why the Canaanites met their end, and includes an account of God reaching out to them (something absent from the canon). Again, this affects the heart.
The response given doesn't really deal with the issue. After all, suppose I decide to eliminate 2 and 3 John from the canon and add the Didache. Does the Bible then remain infallible? Given the logic above, it would, because it wouldn't affect the heart. If the Bible may be changed by men, and the change be valid, then it is not infallible. If that change can be done in the past by one group, then it may be done in the future by another group with equal validity. This is part of the reason I accept the traditional Christian Bible.
blueman said:You cannot accept the Bible as the authoratative Word of God while at the same time saying that their are some books that are not true and an accurate reflection of God's Word. You either accept it as the inspired, authoratative Word of God or you don't. There is no middle ground.
If you reference the early manuscripts and the versions of the Bible that align with 1st century doctrine, it gives you a good basis to go by. Many versions have accurate translated the very early documents of scripture that has been passed down from century to century including the King James, New International, New Living being among the versions recognized with translating the Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament) accurately and perserving the inerrancy (meaning "authoratative") Word of God that the early church fathers adopted as the Canon. They recognized it as the inspired, authoratative Word of God based on (1) Written by the prophets and apostles or those in their inner circle as authoratative books of scripture, (2) Christians recognized that God spoke to them through these books and that the books had spiritual power and were indeed influenced by God and (3) The authors claim that the writings were the inspired Word of God and accepted this as their true testimony since they were eyewitnesses to said events that were also validated and supported by other witnesses. :bounceIbrahim Al-Amin said:I don't believe the issue is so black and white. God presents scripture in many forms, but man has the ability to corrupt that scripture. So, yes, maybe portions of the Bible are the inspired Word of God, but some are not. As the canon has changed numerous times throughout history, and continues to change, then it is man who selects which books are "authorized" and which are not, depending on which preacher you listen to.