Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Options
1158159161163164822

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Schuhart wrote:
    I thought he wanted us to continue with our sinful ways and blasphemy because we are not of the Elect? You are either born as one of the Elect, in which case God's already decided you are saved, or you are born as one of the non-Elect, in which case your only purpose in life is to contribute to the sense of smug satisifaction that the Chosen get from contemplating your eternal torment.

    Indeed, you could describe us as fuelling their bliss.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 144 ✭✭gosimeon


    The truth is there is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    gosimeon wrote:
    The truth is there is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.

    Hmm. Was that bump just now a shark?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Scofflaw said:
    Surely, what Christ is saying is that he is delivering an exoteric message to the multitudes, while the esoterica of his message is reserved for the apostles? How much clearer could "it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given" be?
    Yes, that is my point. The plain truth was hidden from the multitudes by the symbolism, but the disciples were not left in that condition.
    Nor is the esoterica that Christ gave to the apostles recorded in the Bible.
    That is obviously wrong, for He explained the parables to the disciples:
    Matthew 13:18 “Therefore hear the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom, and does not understand it, then the wicked one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is he who received seed by the wayside. 20 But he who received the seed on stony places, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy; 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures only for a while. For when tribulation or persecution arises because of the word, immediately he stumbles. 22 Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. 23 But he who received seed on the good ground is he who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and produces: some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.”

    and

    36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”
    37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!

    Indeed, this forms part of the Catholic Church's claim to sole authority - the so-called 'apostolic tradition', that is, the esoterica handed down from the apostles.
    Rome's Gnostic-like claims have nothing to do with Christ's use of parables. There are no truths God wishes His children to know that are not declared in the New Testament.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote:
    Rome's Gnostic-like claims have nothing to do with Christ's use of parables. There are no truths God wishes His children to know that are not declared in the New Testament.

    That claim would seem rather contradictory, since it was the early church that decided, years after Jesus died, what the "New Testament" actually was.

    You yourself often quote as gospel (excuse the pun) passages from the Bible that have very little to do with Christ or what he actually taught. In fact you seem to quote Paul more than you quote Jesus.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    wolfsbane wrote:
    Yes, that is my point. The plain truth was hidden from the multitudes by the symbolism, but the disciples were not left in that condition.

    Hmm. What you said was:
    wolfsbane wrote:
    But even with the use of parable as illustration, it is mean to help us understand a concept better, not obscure it.

    Now, "hiding the plain truth" is obscuring it, unless your dictionary is radically different from mine.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Rome's Gnostic-like claims have nothing to do with Christ's use of parables. There are no truths God wishes His children to know that are not declared in the New Testament.

    Mere assertion. You are entitled to that belief, but that doesn't make it correct.

    As Wicknight points out, the early (and apostolic) Church decided what went into the Bible. Several early figures have lists of books that they considered 'canonical', and these lists differ from each other.

    If you're looking for a book that was dictated by God to a single person as a single text, you are looking, I suggest, for the Qu'ran. The Bible has no such tidy history.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    You are missing the point. It is not the Bible itself that is important, it is what it is attempting to describe.

    Say you are reading an unauthorised biography on say Princess Diana. Say this biography is crap, it is sensationist, and you know half of it isn't true.

    Naturally the author of the biography will claim all of it is true, he wants his biography to be considered truthful.

    But equally just because it is a nonsense biography, doesn't mean that there was never actually a Princess Diana, or that this guy never actually described accurately anything she said or did.

    But most people have a head screwed on right. They can tell the bits that are nonsense, and the bits that make sense.
    If it was the only history of Diana, how could they make that distinction? Only the fact that we have extensive primary sources on Diana's life gives us the ability to separate most truth about her from fiction.
    Sure that is what most people do anyway. Just look at you and shrimp..
    My morals re: shrimp are clear enough from the New Testament. I think even Jewish opponents of Christianity would agree.
    Yes because before Hitler Stalin and Mao we never had wars

    "Man coming to his own conclusions" after the Enlightenment has actually lead, on a whole, to the longest period of peace and stability in the history of humanity.
    Really? All the revolutions, coups, two World Wars, genocides, are a big improvement on what went before? The main cause of peace in the West from the end of WW2 was nuclear deterrence. However, the main parties, who would otherwise have been cutting each other's throats every 20 years, tried to increase their margins by proxy wars. Veitnam and Afghanistan, for example.
    It has also lead to the greatest period of development and quality of living in the history of humanity.
    I've no problem with that.
    So one can't help but feel that religion wasn't doing a very good job at this. But of course the age old religious idea that is the after life that matters can be used to justify the terrible state of things in this life.
    False religion often encourages ignorance and poverty. But real Christianity motivated those who brought many of the great advances in welfare and science. The Reformers and Reformed Christianity encouraged learning in all its facets.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Scofflaw said:
    As usual, this is not directly attributable to Christ, but is an interpretation which postdates the decision to extend the message to the Gentiles.
    There is no difference in authority between what Christ taught and what the apostles taught. They spoke as the Spirit of Christ informed them - exactly as He promised:
    John 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you.

    Also, the decision to extend the message to the Gentiles was not taken by the apostles, but by God. The apostles had to be persuaded - on more than on occasion - by God's intervention, that this was His will. For example, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=11&version=50


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote:
    If it was the only history of Diana, how could they make that distinction?

    Through rationality, logic, emotion and God given common sense.

    It will be a sad day for the world Wolfsbane when people become completely dependent on being told what to think and believe, by the Bible or anything else.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Really? All the revolutions, coups, two World Wars, genocides, are a big improvement on what went before?
    Yes actually, they are.

    If you look at the percentage of the population that died due to war and disease in the 20th Century and in the previous centuries it is a marked improvement. In Europe we have only had 2 major wars in close to 100 years. That is astounding considering we had periods in the middle ages and renaissence periods that were marked by almost continuous war, often fought over religious differences.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    The main cause of peace in the West from the end of WW2 was nuclear deterrence.
    No, that is the reason why a war was never started between west and the USSR.

    What you should be asking is why has a western European country not declared war on another in close to 60 years?

    Why has there been a war in North America in close to 100 years?

    Why has peace, health and prosperity in these areas vastly increased as they have embraced humanism, secularism and science in this post-Enlightenment era?

    Why have these societies not crumbled under God's wrath and been stricken from the face of the planet? They seem to have been rewarded with the longest period of sustained peace in the history of western civilisation.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    False religion often encourages ignorance and poverty.
    It would appear judging by the history of humanity that religion, Christianity included, encourages ignorance and poverty. Christianity has a pretty poor record when it comes to this.

    A move away from mass organised institutionalised religion (ie secularism in public matters such as the state) appears to do the opposite, ie encourages tolerance, health and prosperity.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    But real Christianity motivated those who brought many of the great advances in welfare and science.

    Such as?


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,417 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    > They seem to have been rewarded with the longest period of
    > sustained peace in the history of western civilisation.


    I believe that the Roman Empire from 92 CE to 196 CE, in the period of the Antonine emperors Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius was arguably the longest period of sustained peace which "Europe" has enjoyed during recorded history. Up to and during this time, the Roman Empire pretty much let people believe what they wanted to believe, but only so long as public laws and institutions were respected. That's where the jewish and later, christian, authorities ran into trouble since they asserted that they and their religion were more important than the Empire.

    > It would appear judging by the history of humanity that religion,
    > Christianity included, encourages ignorance and poverty.


    A conclusion which Edward Gibbon reached in "Decline and Fall" for which he's been denounced ever since!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote:
    There is no difference in authority between what Christ taught and what the apostles taught.

    Then surely you must be a Catholic (or Orthodox?), considering that the first Pope was Saint Peter, an apostle of Christ, and was given the commandment by Christ to start his church and to lead it?

    Matt.16:18-19: "18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Scofflaw said:
    Actually, if you look at what is claimed by (for example) JC, it is that mutations are always deleterious. No 'context' is given - all mutations are necessarily corruptions of God's perfect work, and represent a reduction in the 'complex specified information' in the genome.

    This mutation is interesting, in the sense that it is probably (a) major, (b) pretty neutral, and (c) clearly involves an increase of information in the genome (addditional leg templates).
    I'll leave it to JC to respond to the specific increase of information in the genome aspect, but as a layman I don't see how an extra set of legs can be anything but a corruption of God's perfect work and deleterious. You think the extra set of legs would prove pretty neutral in a duck's life??? You must have a romantic view of nature. :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    bluewolf said:
    A theology friend showed me this in response:
    http://www.infidels.org/library/maga...2/2chew95.html
    Interesting response, but does not refute the central point.
    If parents create a child, do they have the right to kill the child and burn their bedroom as a punishment for something?
    No, since it is their peer, even if temporarily under their care. That is not our relationship to God.
    "Or else I'll throw a tantrum", yes.
    Reward you with your just deserts, is a better description.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    robindch said:
    Wolfsbane, you are in a dangerous state of religious error
    Thank you for your concern for my spiritual safety. :)
    But you need not worry:
    -- Jesus did no such thing and he says so quite explicitly in Matthew 5:17:
    Quote:
    Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    As Scofflaw points out, the line you have quoted was not said by Jesus and can, in no way, override his direct mandate.

    Had Jesus just abolished the Law of Moses, He would have been a sinner. But, as He pointedly says, He came to fulfil it. He perfectly obeyed the Law, the only one who ever did so, and thus qualified Himself to be the atoning sacrifice for His people's sin.

    With that sacrifice, all the Mosaic sacrifices and regulations came to an end. Christ made one sacrifice and that achieved what all the Mosaic ones could never do - atone for sins forever. Christ not only replaced by His once-only sacrifice all the daily and yearly sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, He also replaced the Mosaic priesthood. He became the High Priest of His people, representing them before His Father.

    Christ fulfilled all the Law's demands, then introduced the New Covenant by His death. Worship in spirit and truth replaced the outward forms of the Old Testament times.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    You misrepresent Creationism (and JC) by saying it holds that any genetic defect is immediately or necessarily fatal. THEY NEVER SAY SUCH A THING.


    Actually he says it all the time. In fact he said it in his first post


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JC
    Why is the only mechanism postulated by Evolution to produce genetic variation – genetic mutation – invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions most of the time?
    I'll let JC defend himself, but from my reading of him I gained no such impression as you suggest. In fact, the quote above shows this:
    invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions most of the time?

    That said, I don't see how this affects our concept of evolution. It is an example of the micro-evolution Creationists accept, not of change from one sort of organism to another which Evolutionists believe in.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    Clearly the fact that God hasn't killed you for your blasphemy is evidence He exists and actually wants you to continue this blasphemy.

    Just as clearly the fact that God hasn't killed me for my sinful ways is proof that God is actually fine with my sinful ways and in fact wants me to continue them as they aren't really a sin at all.
    As ever, your logic is ill-informed:
    Romans 2: Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

    Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    wolfsbane wrote:
    I'll let JC defend himself, but from my reading of him I gained no such impression as you suggest. In fact, the quote above shows this:
    invariably damaging to the genome resulting in lethal and semi lethal conditions most of the time?

    That said, I don't see how this affects our concept of evolution. It is an example of the micro-evolution Creationists accept, not of change from one sort of organism to another which Evolutionists believe in.

    Well, that is to confuse deleterious with disadvantageous.

    The idea proposed by JC is that mutations are deleterious - that is, directly dangerous and harmful to the organism.

    I'm sure that having four legs is probably a disadvantage for a duck, and so we could expect it to be eliminated by natural selection - but it is not in itself dangerous or harmful to the organism.

    As to the question of micro-evolution, we have never had any explanation from the Creationist side of why organisms can be shaped by natural selection within species (which are arbitrary boundaries drawn up by evolutionists) but not beyond them.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    wolfsbane wrote:
    robindch said:

    Thank you for your concern for my spiritual safety. :)
    But you need not worry:


    Had Jesus just abolished the Law of Moses, He would have been a sinner. But, as He pointedly says, He came to fulfil it. He perfectly obeyed the Law, the only one who ever did so, and thus qualified Himself to be the atoning sacrifice for His people's sin.

    With that sacrifice, all the Mosaic sacrifices and regulations came to an end. Christ made one sacrifice and that achieved what all the Mosaic ones could never do - atone for sins forever. Christ not only replaced by His once-only sacrifice all the daily and yearly sacrifices of the Mosaic Law, He also replaced the Mosaic priesthood. He became the High Priest of His people, representing them before His Father.

    Christ fulfilled all the Law's demands, then introduced the New Covenant by His death. Worship in spirit and truth replaced the outward forms of the Old Testament times.

    Interesting. Where is that supported? It seems a somewhat more complete explanation than I remember being available in the Bible, but presumably it's somewhere in the Letters?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Keanu Gifted Chipmunk


    wolfsbane wrote:
    Interesting response, but does not refute the central point.
    Certainly it does,
    the others have shown why aig is a useless site anyway.
    No, since it is their peer, even if temporarily under their care. That is not our relationship to God.
    So what's the difference, power?
    Reward you with your just deserts, is a better description.
    Uh huh. I see nothing just about it. If I declared myself good and just, I'd still be wrong to go around killing things.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    I think this sums up this thread nicely



    2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.png


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Diogenes said:
    I think this sums up this thread nicely
    I agree. It would have been clearer however if the specific case was used:

    For 'Get an idea' insert 'Theory of Evolution'. And continue on down the Faith column. :D

    This doesn't apply to all faith, however. Christianity is happy to debate the evidence, as this thread shows. It is evolutionary materialism that wants to silence its opponents.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote:
    This doesn't apply to all faith, however. Christianity is happy to debate the evidence, as this thread shows. It is evolutionary materialism that wants to silence its opponents.

    Groan. Wolfsbane wolfsbane wolfsbane, we have been over this....

    In the 150 year history of Darwinian evolution theory the only time anyone has ever been silenced it has been science and evolution being silenced, under the law and under pressure from religious groups, such in American before the Scopes trial.

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

    Creationism and Intelligent Design has never been silence. In fact quite the opposite, since Darwin published his papers all we hear is the religious fundamentalists drone on and on about Creationism and Intelligent Design (normally with a bit of fire and brimstone thrown in). You can't get a way from it. It seems a month doesn't go by where some religious group is attempting to force their religious dogma into a class room or science lab. Can't demonstrate your religious theory is sound and based on proper scientific principles? Doesn't matter! Sue the school board!

    Yet for some strange bizarre unknown reason this clearly blindingly obvious theory that the universe was created 6000 years ago and that we are all descended from a naked chick who lived just south of Babylon (obvious if you are a Christian of course) has failed to convince the majority of scientists around the world (especially the non-Christians ones, go figure) to throw away 3000 years of scientific discovery, reason, logic and apparently millions of years of evidence, and embrace the one particular religious outlook.

    I wonder why that is .... :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Schuhart said:
    I thought he wanted us to continue with our sinful ways and blasphemy because we are not of the Elect?
    No, God wants all to be righteous and do righteousness.
    You are either born as one of the Elect, in which case God's already decided you are saved,
    No, the elect still need to be saved.
    or you are born as one of the non-Elect, in which case your only purpose in life is to contribute to the sense of smug satisifaction that the Chosen get from contemplating your eternal torment.
    The Chosen have no smug satisfaction about sinners perishing in their sins. The purpose of the elect and non-elect is to demonstrate the character of God: His and mercy and justice. His mercy is seen in pardoning any of the wicked, and He does so for many millions. His justice is seen in punishing the unrepentant wicked.

    I'm sure you agree that even in temporal things, punishment of wickedness is a good and righteous act. Much more so in regard to spiritual things, where the crime is against God's holiness.
    This is explains how large parts of the world are oblivious to this mind-numbingly limited interpretation of the divine message.
    Yes, they felt the same in Noah's time too:
    Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. 38 For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, 39 and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Wicknight said:
    That claim would seem rather contradictory, since it was the early church that decided, years after Jesus died, what the "New Testament" actually was.
    They ruled on what was Scripture and what was not, certainly. But they did not create it. They were only recognising what was already there. God inspired the New Testament writers, just as He did the Old Testament writers, and they wrote accordingly. Thus Scripture (the Bible) is God's word.
    You yourself often quote as gospel (excuse the pun) passages from the Bible that have very little to do with Christ or what he actually taught. In fact you seem to quote Paul more than you quote Jesus.
    Indeed so. Because Christ committed His word to the apostles, inspiring them to infallibly teach us accordingly:
    Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,835 ✭✭✭Schuhart


    wolfsbane wrote:
    No, God wants all to be righteous and do righteousness.
    This seems a different line to the one you were peddling earlier. I'll try to be brief, in the hope that if we do go around in a circle it will be a short one.

    God's message, in the sense of your vision of Christianity, is not universally available. Even today I take it we could still point to parts of the world that just don't have access to a Bible. More commonly, there would be large chunks of the world that haven't heard of Christianity in any context that would lead them to give it a second glance because they know they already have the one true faith, followed by their ancestors since whenever.

    So how can God want all to be righteous, in the sense of following your religion, if they haven't access to the message? Isn't the only reasonable conclusion (from a theist perspective) that God sees all or most religions as valid?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,980 ✭✭✭wolfsbane


    Scofflaw said:
    Now, "hiding the plain truth" is obscuring it, unless your dictionary is radically different from mine.
    My apologies if I was not clear. The purpose of using the parables was to hid the truth from those unfit to receive it. It was there, but it required spiritual enlightenment to fully grasp. Even the disciples had to have it explained to them. Christ did that for them, but not for the rest. For the enlightened, the parables then become a helpful tool to remember the lesson. For the rest, they remained an enigma.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wolfsbane
    Rome's Gnostic-like claims have nothing to do with Christ's use of parables. There are no truths God wishes His children to know that are not declared in the New Testament.


    Mere assertion. You are entitled to that belief, but that doesn't make it correct.
    Scripture declares that all we need can be found in it:
    2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
    As Wicknight points out, the early (and apostolic) Church decided what went into the Bible. Several early figures have lists of books that they considered 'canonical', and these lists differ from each other.
    They recognised what was the Bible. As for incomplete lists, the presevation of scripture was not committed to any individual, but to the Church as a whole.
    If you're looking for a book that was dictated by God to a single person as a single text, you are looking, I suggest, for the Qu'ran. The Bible has no such tidy history.
    I never claimed it did. In fact, the Bible expressly denies it:
    1 Peter 1:10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into.

    Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    wolfsbane wrote:
    They ruled on what was Scripture and what was not, certainly. But they did not create it. They were only recognising what was already there.
    Does that matter?

    If they can be inspired by God to recognise and rule on existing scripture they can be inspired by God to create new scripture. After all you either are or are not inspired by God.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Indeed so. Because Christ committed His word to the apostles, inspiring them to infallibly teach us accordingly:

    Paul wasn't an apostle though was he?


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    wolfsbane wrote:
    My apologies if I was not clear. The purpose of using the parables was to hid the truth from those unfit to receive it. It was there, but it required spiritual enlightenment to fully grasp. Even the disciples had to have it explained to them. Christ did that for them, but not for the rest. For the enlightened, the parables then become a helpful tool to remember the lesson. For the rest, they remained an enigma.

    Hmm. So somehow we are better than them? Those that read Christ's teachings better off than those that actually heard them in the flesh? It seems a little strange...
    wolfsbane wrote:
    Scripture declares that all we need can be found in it:
    2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

    Yes, but that works perfectly well with the idea of an exoteric and esoteric tradition. The exoteric tradition would indeed contain 'all that was needed' for the multitude, just as Christ's sermons did.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    They recognised what was the Bible. As for incomplete lists, the presevation of scripture was not committed to any individual, but to the Church as a whole.

    Decided by Church Council, I believe. Still, it requires that the choice be as inspired as the writing.
    wolfsbane wrote:
    I never claimed it did. In fact, the Bible expressly denies it:
    1 Peter 1:10 Of this salvation the prophets have inquired and searched carefully, who prophesied of the grace that would come to you, 11 searching what, or what manner of time, the Spirit of Christ who was in them was indicating when He testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow. 12 To them it was revealed that, not to themselves, but to us they were ministering the things which now have been reported to you through those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things which angels desire to look into.

    Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,

    Fair enough - actually, my phrasing was probably excessive hyperbole.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    wolfsbane wrote:
    I agree. It would have been clearer however if the specific case was used:

    For 'Get an idea' insert 'Theory of Evolution'. And continue on down the Faith column. :D

    This doesn't apply to all faith, however. Christianity is happy to debate the evidence, as this thread shows. It is evolutionary materialism that wants to silence its opponents.

    So presumably you're here to debate the evidence, but we're here to silence our opponents....

    ...to think I almost missed this gem!

    would sir like sauce with his words?
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Oh well, three posts in a row...

    A question for the creationists. What's the point of chimpanzees? Reading recent articles about their use of tools and spears, the evolutionary point of view is obvious - chimps are closely related to us, so not so surprising. From the Creationist point of view - how come?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement