metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Only likely because they never came to power anywhere.
Also, you miss the point in that you only cite the RCC but ignore the others.
Last edited:
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Conundrum for Christians Who Believe the Bible is God's Word
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
Also, you miss the point in that you only cite the RCC but ignore the others.
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
The Puritans saw the error in the CoE when they changed the Bible to appease the King (James). And became a church of "mens doctrines" over Gods. The Bible they brought to America was the original (1599) and not the reformed KJV. Since the time of Tyndale's translation, the Bible has been changed many times (to appease men). No different that it was during the 3-4 century to appease those like Constantine.
Tyndales and Wycliffes translations clearly showed a tainting of words from the Latin Vulgate, and when the two men challenged the "Papel", they paid with their lives.
Celestial authority (given to men in 325 AD Nicaea) should never have occurred, as it's power made such men "liars and murderers".
Just my perception.
dfnj
Well-Known Member
So many versions, so many interpretations, so many translators!
Unless you write your own version of the Bible which takes years I don't think anyone truly understands it. Spitting our scripture quotes just says to me a person doesn't understand what they are talking about well-enough to put it into their own words.
I'm curious about your statement, "the Bible has been changed many times (to appease men)". When has it not been men changing the Bible. I think the entire book was written by men. It may be divinely inspired but I think it is more just a case of men writing what they believe to be God's way of looking at the World. I think the words in the Bible are tightly bound to the mindset of the man who authored each line.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Which bible? The original 73-book bible? the modified 66 book bible? Luther's 62 book bible? Or do you include other texts like the Gospel of Thomas? Which books are inspired and which are not, and should you trust your judgment, the judgment of the original compilers, the judgment of most Protestant Reformationists, the judgment of Luther, the judgment of the Orthodox church, or the judgment of early Christian gnostics? See the problem......?
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Ahhh I see.....hard for me to keep up with all the posts. So, may I ask, are you an agnostic Christian?
dfnj
Well-Known Member
Labels are generally bad. People are way too complicated to be so easily classified as a label. Plus labels have inherent bigotries and prejudices. I try to avoid labels whenever possible.
One thing is for certain. Whatever it is we are talking about, we are the Universe's way of experiencing itself.
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
They were as big as the early rising of catholic ideology.
Valentinianism was one of the major Gnostic Christian movements. Founded by Valentinus in the second century AD, its influence spread extremely widely, not just within Rome, but also from Northwest Africa to Egypt through to Asia Minor and Syria in the east.[1]
Later in the movement’s history it broke into an Eastern and a Western school. Disciples of Valentinus continued to be active into the 4th century AD, after the Roman Empire was declared to be Christian.[2]
Valentinus and Marcion saw Paul as the spiritual leader of gospel translations. The early catholics saw Peter. But the schism at Incident at Antioch caused the division, spoken of in Acts as well as Galatians.
The schism went into the 5th century with both sides have great followings. One overpowered the other, when the council at Nicaea (catholics) sided with the power of the Roman Empire. Once that happened, by 381, the church of Rome enacted "death" to heretics (as well as their books burned).
But you are correct. The RCC came to power through Rome (their namesake). And this power was used to squelch any other thought but theirs. The same power of Rome (from the Jews) was used to destroy Jesus. Rome was a puppet of spiritual ignorance on both counts. Constantine would never give up his riches or his murdering to conquer lands. The catholics allowed him both as long as they got their backs scratched as well. The RCC celestial authority and the Empire of Rome material authority. It's why Paul told us not to trust worldly governors. Opps, I forgot, King James had those words removed out of the Bible in 1612. They are in the 1599 Bible though.
See it as you like.
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
You are correct in your thinking. Jesus taught a message, but what was the message? Ask a man and you'll get his answer. Ask a church, and you will get a group answer. So what to believe? Who is right, who is wrong?
Jesus said to "seek and you will find". But where do we seek?
The word of God is a seed. The parable of the seed is a good starting place. Luke 8
10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
Jesus died to bring us a seed. He left us with the Spirit of truth. Man did not or could not write all things Jesus taught. But we have enough to identify the seed and make it grow (spiritually within us). Like any seed, some things help it grow and some things don't. People see a parable, quote it and that is what they see. But without (spiritual) understanding, it remains a parable.
I can only speak from my own seeking. How this "seed" has grown into a mighty bush, as Jesus said. He said it was a "mystery", so how do we know when the mystery is solved? By the promise, IMO.
I see Gods Spirit in many places. Not just the Bible, as, as you said, men wrote it. But men do not lead us to "all truth". The Spirit does. John 16:13
Now if Jesus said that HE is the truth, and the Spirit leads us into "all truth", then we have an idea where to being our path.
I found this verse from Secret James as truth.
"Become zealous about the Word. For the Word's first condition is faith; the second is love; the third is works. Now from these comes life. For the Word is like a grain of wheat. When someone sowed it, he believed in it; and when it sprouted, he loved it, because he looked forward to many grains in the place of one; and when he worked it, he was saved, because he prepared it for food. Again he left some grains to sow. Thus it is also possible for you all to receive the Kingdom of Heaven: unless you receive it through knowledge, you will not be able to find it.
It's up to each person to pray and see if the Spirit says "yes, it's true" or "no, don't believe it". It is not in the Bible. So do we reject it as truth because the words are outside the Bible? It comes down to whether your YOUR is influenced by men or by Spirit. The promise from Jesus was that we would find (truth) if we ask in his name. Not mans truth, but the Spirits truth. Figure out the difference between the two. Forget Paul said, Matthew said, Philip said. Gods knowledge is everywhere, not where men say they have "trapped" it.
Just my perspective.
Or, is the "original" Marcion's version, with the Gospel of Luke and 10 epistles attributed to Paul?
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
Good synopsis.
The first Christian canon was Marcions. Through his small a direct canon (of the seed, word of God) others followed with more books to define what is and what isn't of God. 1 John 4 says that we will know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. If I am responsible for my own soul, why would I follow other men who are responsible for their own soul? Words could mislead, but God knows the heart.......it's intentions. We don't judge others (by the Bible or any scripture) because we all have our own thorns (as Paul said). The Bible saves no one. The church saves no one. We are saved through grace, the Fathers patience and understanding, that even when we may be wrong (or sin) that our faith is placed in the Christ we wish and hope to become.
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
Valentinus attributed his knowledge from Paul as well.
Not Christianity:
- "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2
- "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient" - Titus 3:1
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
Yet as above, explicitly limiting government powers in the US was central to the founding of a predominantly Christian country at the time
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Christian country? Many of the founders were deists. Jefferson in particular mocked Christianity, and I'm actually surprised he became president. Certainly wouldn't happen today.
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
You render to Caesar that which is Caesars and God that which is Gods. Government governs flesh, God governs spirit. If they mix, you have a theocracy. Christ taught theology. There is a difference. The RCC were advisers to Emperors, Kings, and the such. Jesus was an adviser to no government. Gods control allows men to "think free" even if they were slaves by flesh.
Why should I listen to a faithless atheist?
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
If that's the best you've got, then evidently I've stumped you.
You have an inherent biased. I have faith. That’s the difference.
Grandliseur
Well-Known Member
I just put a link out of a study of mine. It relates to this so-called problem you speak of. These claims of centuries later compilation of the Bible is strictly not true, though, it may be the time when the body of books recognized by a single church authority gathered this into one such recognized volume. The facts, however, show us that the Christians who had survived these intermediary centuries already possessed what was to them the body of sacred texts both in the OT and the NT.
You, as a Devout Agnostic, may think we have a problem. I, as a devout Christian, non-denominational, do not have a problem at all.
Please read this link: Truth Seeker - The New Testament
The material may not be comprehensive, it might be able to be improved on yet with other material that was missed in the first pass, however, it surely tells us what was available at early times, taking away this nonsense about how things were compiled centuries later.
Last edited:
Phantasman
Well-Known Member
See the difference in agnostic and atheist.
His point is valid, and speaks against orthodoxy, not belief (in spirit).
There is a fine line between gnostic and agnostic that orthodoxy does not see. Mark 38-39
Just because he doesn't see (or understand) orthodoxy doesn't mean he is your enemy (in spirit).
Constantine was converted because he said a vision from God told him how to win an unwinable battle. He tempted God by saying "if I win, I will believe". One has to ask, did God allow Constantine to murder to gain a high power on earth? (orthodox religion).
As an agnostic, he has neither denied or accepted God. He just hasn't found God through orthodoxy. If he wants to seek, the truth will find him, even if it's not the truth you see.