Conundrum for Christians Who Believe the Bible is God's Word

[Rational Agnostic]

Many Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. I believe that I already addressed the common and obviously fallacious circular argument used to defend this claim (the bible says it is god's word, therefore it must be god's word). However, there is another argument than many Christians use. They quote Jesus as stating "My sheep hear my voice...." in John 10:27, and argue that Christians can differentiate between what is God's word and what is not God's word because they have the holy spirit living in them. Therefore, they argue, when the bible was assembled in AD 325 by the Council of Nicaea, it was assembled correctly, since the individuals gathered there presumably had the holy spirit of God in them.

However, there is a serious logical problem with this argument, and that is as follows: Not all Christians agree on what books should be included in the Bible. Catholics use a Bible with 73 books, while Protestants use a Bible with 66 books, since many of them were removed during the Reformation, primarily by Martin Luther. If this split between Catholicism and Protestantism were not enough, Protestants need to bear in mind that Luther wanted to also remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, and he explicitly stated that he believed that they were NOT inspired by God.

So, Christians who believe in divine inspiration of the bible have a serious problem. Do you believe the original compilers of the Bible, who assembled the Bible as 73 books? Do you believe the Protestants who removed 7 books from the Bible? Do you believe Martin Luther, who wanted another four books removed from the Bible? Or do you believe that some of the gnostic gospels should be included, even though they were excluded from the original canon? Furthermore, if you believe that you can recognize God's word for yourself, and you also believe that Martin Luther was a Christian, you have a serious problem. If Luther could be wrong (in your opinion) about Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, even though he was "saved," then you must admit that you could be wrong about what is and is not God's word also. In the end, Christians are faced with a serious conundrum about deciding if the Bible is the word of God, and if one is honest, one has to admit that deciding what is and is not "the word of God" is entirely subject to personal preference, and nothing more.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

There are also other variations between on the one hand the RCC and Western Protestant canons, and the other, the canons of many of the Eastern churches, including the Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic and other "orthodox" churches. These include not just different books in their canons, but there are also some significant differences in the texts (although most of the variations are comparatively minor grammatical and word-choice differences). For example, Acts in the Eastern Orthodox version is significantly longer than that of the West.

 

[David1967]

I think the Bible 'contains' Gods word. It also contains poetry, history, contemplations on the nature of mans existence, letters to the early churches, etc.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I think the Bible 'contains' Gods word.

Out of curiosity, I have two questions for you:

1) Do you believe Luther was a Christian who had the Holy Spirit of God?
2) Do you believe Luther was correct in his statements that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were not of the Holy Spirit and should be removed from the Bible?

 

[David1967]

Out of curiosity, I have two questions for you:

1) Do you believe Luther was a Christian who had the Holy Spirit of God?
2) Do you believe Luther was correct in his statements that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were not of the Holy Spirit and should be removed from the Bible?

Luther , was an interesting individual. He stood up to the Catholic Church which was a good thing but at the same time was an anti Semite. So, I have mixed feelings about him. To answer your first question; Yes ,he was of the Christian faith. I need clarification on what you mean by "having the holy Spirit of God". Do you mean in a modern Pentecostal way, or in a 'guided' by the Holy Spirit way?

Your second Question; I wouldn't go that far with removal, but I'm sure he had his reasons for believing that. The book of James which he called a "right strawy epistle", has been a controversial book to say the least. IMO the letters in the New Testament should be treated as they were intended; Letters of advice to the early churches.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Luther , was an interesting individual. He stood up to the Catholic Church which was a good thing but at the same time was an anti Semite. So, I have mixed feelings about him. To answer your first question; Yes ,he was of the Christian faith. I need clarification on what you mean by "having the holy Spirit of God". Do you mean in a modern Pentecostal way, or in a 'guided' by the Holy Spirit way?

Your second Question; I wouldn't go that far with removal, but I'm sure he had his reasons for believing that. The book of James which he called a "right strawy epistle", has been a controversial book to say the least. IMO the letters in the New Testament should be treated as they were intended; Letters of advice to the early churches.

Thanks for answering. As far as "having the holy spirit" goes, I mean it in the way that most evangelical (non-pentecostal) Christians view it, so I suppose it would be more of a "guided" by the Holy Spirit way. My point is that (assuming you view Luther to be a fellow Christian), many other Christians would disagree with him about the books that he did and did not want included in the Bible. If he could be wrong, then presumably any Christian could be wrong, leaving the books that should and shouldn't be included in the Bible up to subjective interpretation.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

I assume you believe that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln actually existed, correct? But why? Have you personally seen them, did you walk and talk with them, or just read of them in books? Was it 'pictures' of them that sealed your belief that they actually existed?

 

[David1967]

As far as "having the holy spirit" goes, I mean it in the way that most evangelical (non-pentecostal) Christians view it, so I suppose it would be more of a "guided" by the Holy Spirit way

Ok, that is the way I view the Holy Spirit. As far as Luther being guided by the Holy Spirit? I'm not going to take an all or none approach. What I mean by that is that I view Luther as a flawed human being just like the rest of us. (And a product of the time he lived in). Sometimes guided by the Holy Spirit, sometimes due to our own hard headedness ignoring that guiding influence. In standing up to the Catholic Church selling of indulgences and sticking to his guns about salvation being by the grace of God? I think he was definitely guided by the Holy Spirit. But by believing that Jewish Synagogues should be burned and their property taken? definitely not.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I assume you believe that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln actually existed, correct? But why? Have you personally seen them, did you walk and talk with them, or just read of them in books? Was it 'pictures' of them that sealed your belief that they actually existed?

What does any of that have to do with my initial post?

 

[David1967]

Catholics use a Bible with 73 books, while Protestants use a Bible with 66 books

The original 1611 KJV had the Apocryphal books in it. For some reason, they were later removed.

 

[dfnj]

Many Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God.

I think the reason Christians are the way they are has less to do with the idea the Bible is the literal word of God and has everything to do with authoritarianism. The Bible is a propaganda message promoting monarchy as the best form of government. And the King is like God on earth. People are supposed to worship the King as if the King were God himself. The entire Bible is designed to condition people to obey an outside authority over their own personal authority. This way when the King tells the people to do something completely against their own self-interests they obey without question.

Obeying authority is absolutely the most important part of achieving salvation. God commands it...I mean the King commands you!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Many Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. I believe that I already addressed the common and obviously fallacious circular argument used to defend this claim (the bible says it is god's word, therefore it must be god's word). However, there is another argument than many Christians use. They quote Jesus as stating "My sheep hear my voice...." in John 10:27, and argue that Christians can differentiate between what is God's word and what is not God's word because they have the holy spirit living in them. Therefore, they argue, when the bible was assembled in AD 325 by the Council of Nicaea, it was assembled correctly, since the individuals gathered there presumably had the holy spirit of God in them.

However, there is a serious logical problem with this argument, and that is as follows: Not all Christians agree on what books should be included in the Bible. Catholics use a Bible with 73 books, while Protestants use a Bible with 66 books, since many of them were removed during the Reformation, primarily by Martin Luther. If this split between Catholicism and Protestantism were not enough, Protestants need to bear in mind that Luther wanted to also remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, and he explicitly stated that he believed that they were NOT inspired by God.

So, Christians who believe in divine inspiration of the bible have a serious problem. Do you believe the original compilers of the Bible, who assembled the Bible as 73 books? Do you believe the Protestants who removed 7 books from the Bible? Do you believe Martin Luther, who wanted another four books removed from the Bible? Or do you believe that some of the gnostic gospels should be included, even though they were excluded from the original canon? Furthermore, if you believe that you can recognize God's word for yourself, and you also believe that Martin Luther was a Christian, you have a serious problem. If Luther could be wrong (in your opinion) about Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, even though he was "saved," then you must admit that you could be wrong about what is and is not God's word also. In the end, Christians are faced with a serious conundrum about deciding if the Bible is the word of God, and if one is honest, one has to admit that deciding what is and is not "the word of God" is entirely subject to personal preference, and nothing more.

The Bible is the most popular, widely read, inspiring and influential book in the history of humanity. I'd say that's certainly consistent with being a divine creation.

Part of what makes this so remarkable, is that one book can resonate over millennia, continents, cultures, i.e. it has to say different things to different people at different times.

 

[Skwim]

I think the Bible 'contains' Gods word. It also contains poetry, history, contemplations on the nature of mans existence, letters to the early churches, etc.

You appear to be saying that "In addition to god's word there is also poetry, history, contemplations on the nature of mans existence, letters to the early churches, etc." Is this correct?

.

 

[David1967]

You appear to be saying that "In addition to god's word there is also poetry, history, contemplations on the nature of mans existence, letters to the early churches, etc." Is this correct?

.

I think that's fair.

 

[Skwim]

The Bible is the most popular, widely read, inspiring and influential book in the history of humanity. I'd say that's certainly consistent with being a divine creation.

Perhaps, but it certainly can't be cited as proof or even evidence.

Part of what makes this so remarkable, is that one book can resonate over millennia, continents, cultures, i.e. it has to say different things to different people at different times.

Don't forget that over millennia people were often required to bow to Christianity under penalty of blacklisting, shunning, ostracism, and even death. So for some it says, "oppression."

.

 

[Skwim]

I think that's fair.

Then how do you differentiate?

.

 

[Phantasman]

Many Christians believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. I believe that I already addressed the common and obviously fallacious circular argument used to defend this claim (the bible says it is god's word, therefore it must be god's word). However, there is another argument than many Christians use. They quote Jesus as stating "My sheep hear my voice...." in John 10:27, and argue that Christians can differentiate between what is God's word and what is not God's word because they have the holy spirit living in them. Therefore, they argue, when the bible was assembled in AD 325 by the Council of Nicaea, it was assembled correctly, since the individuals gathered there presumably had the holy spirit of God in them.

However, there is a serious logical problem with this argument, and that is as follows: Not all Christians agree on what books should be included in the Bible. Catholics use a Bible with 73 books, while Protestants use a Bible with 66 books, since many of them were removed during the Reformation, primarily by Martin Luther. If this split between Catholicism and Protestantism were not enough, Protestants need to bear in mind that Luther wanted to also remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, and he explicitly stated that he believed that they were NOT inspired by God.

So, Christians who believe in divine inspiration of the bible have a serious problem. Do you believe the original compilers of the Bible, who assembled the Bible as 73 books? Do you believe the Protestants who removed 7 books from the Bible? Do you believe Martin Luther, who wanted another four books removed from the Bible? Or do you believe that some of the gnostic gospels should be included, even though they were excluded from the original canon? Furthermore, if you believe that you can recognize God's word for yourself, and you also believe that Martin Luther was a Christian, you have a serious problem. If Luther could be wrong (in your opinion) about Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, even though he was "saved," then you must admit that you could be wrong about what is and is not God's word also. In the end, Christians are faced with a serious conundrum about deciding if the Bible is the word of God, and if one is honest, one has to admit that deciding what is and is not "the word of God" is entirely subject to personal preference, and nothing more.

A valid argument friend. Truth (from God) cannot be contained in one or many "books". John 21:25

Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.- Luke

Jesus parable of the seed shows the error in orthodoxy. They worship the seed over the blossom. Jesus said that the Spirit would lead us into all truth. Not certain men who say that they have it. The books of Hebrews doesn't even belong in "Gods word" yet it appears and is undeniably accepted. It glorifies priests and priests concocted the Bible. Same with the Pastorals.

1 John:
We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Who was John writing to, and who is the "we" and "us" he refers to?

 

[Phantasman]

Don't forget that over millennia people were often required to bow to Christianity under penalty of blacklisting, shunning, ostracism, and even death. So for some it says, "oppression."

.

This was a RCC endeavor.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

This was a RCC endeavor.

Not entirely; once England started building its empire, the CoE and other protestant denominations helped carry on the tradition, which is still playing out in Africa, Asia and the Americas.

 

[metis]

Don't forget that over millennia people were often required to bow to Christianity under penalty of blacklisting, shunning, ostracism, and even death. So for some it says, "oppression."

This was a RCC endeavor.

Phantasman are you not at all familiar with history under Protestants? Do you honestly believe that Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli believed in freedom of religion? Ever read about how the Pilgrims and Puritans treated those outside their faith here in the Americas? Ever read how Catholics and Jews were persecuted here both when we had colonies and, later, states?