I find this one quite interesting.
In the debate between creationists and science, the creationists love to refer to how the bible's truth has never changed...........unlike science.
Aside from the fact that the main strength of science is its preparedness to revise our understanding of what we believe to be true, it avoids that period in the first two hundred years of the common era when christianity was a bunch of sects, mostly Gnostic, pushing very different concepts and ideas.
The christians were brought together by political neccesity rather than a blinding realisation of truth.
How can christians be so sure that the bits that were chosen for the New Testament were the right bits?
2007-07-20 00:57:56 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Uncle John............Where did I suggest a single author?
Do you think I'm that uneducated?
Get real will you.
2007-07-20 01:12:05 · update #1
As a Christian, I wasn't really sure of what I believed until I became an atheist. The more that one studies religion, the more one sees how splintered and arbitrary it is.
2007-07-20 01:00:28 · answer #1 · answered by nondescript 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Ah - an interesting question that betrays that the writer doesn't know about the Bible.
There is no question among biblical scholars that the text we have is the result of editing and in several cases, multiple authors. There is no single source - despite the lovely tradition, "Moses" did not write the 1st five books of the Old Testament, and the Gospels had at the very least editors, if not, again, multiple authors.
And then the question of the writings that were not included - if the Gospel According to Thomas had been discovered at that time, it would probably have been included in the canon.
But that's not the point. The point is the message. There is a group of scholars that has worked for years trying to determine which of the words of Jesus were probably really his and which words put in his mouth. But it doesn't change the message. Disciples often wrote as though the teacher were speaking. We know that Paul did not write all the letters attributed to him.
But it doesn't change the message. Worrying about whether the writing is of a particular pedigree is applying a scientific norm to something that isn't scientific. And those who try to advance that argument have accepted science's terms of debate. Which is silly.
Because it's not science.
2007-07-20 01:05:07 · answer #2 · answered by Uncle John 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The reason why the bibles truth never changed is because it is the truth...
Science is still in the verge of search and discovery of the truth...
Simple right? one is an established truth and the other is not (yet)..
About Christianism, the thing that created the problem is the maleducation of the truth.
Few centuries ago many kings and leaders Used Christianism (greedily) to conquer a place or a kingdom because they have seen its true power.. and the thruth with in..
The real christians knows how to find the truth, not by merely refering to the bible but by faith and experience with the God they believe in.
2007-07-20 01:14:42 · answer #3 · answered by peter 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
in case you learn history, you may not arrive on the tip that Peter grow to be the top of the early church. a million. whilst the apostles held the council in Jerusalem, defined in Acts 15, it grow to be no longer Peter who made the suited judgements. It grow to be JAMES. The apostles then despatched out letters to the outlying church homes according to what JAMES had desperate. Peter grow to be no better than one voice of many on the council. 2. There are too many verses to place up here wherein Jesus announces no one yet himself to be head of the church. 3. As has been noted persistently here,in a million Peter 2:4-8 it particularly is crystal clean that Jesus is speaking of himself by using fact the inspiration.it particularly is a genuine stretch to think of that in simple terms this one time he suggested, "After heavily coaching you all that i'm the inspiration, i'm now going to abdicate and make Peter head of the church." Utter rubbish. 4. you will no longer locate historians or pupils - exterior of the Catholic church - who help that declare. Even Justin Martyr refuted it. So, Peter in no way claimed it or behaved as though it have been genuine, the different apostles in no way claimed it or behaved as though it have been genuine, and Jesus in no way claimed it. each and all the proofs are against it, yet a pupil of history wonders why Protestants disagree with it? it particularly is unusual. a greater advantageous question may be exterior of one sentence that would have been (examine quite grow to be) misconstrued, what information helps Peter as head of the early church? answer - none. For longer proofs, 2 hyperlinks are linked, assuming which you particularly need to understand why.
2016-10-09 03:02:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They can't be. It is absolute fact that the Bible as we know it was constructed for political purposes. That is not a theory, it is a historical fact, that even educated Christians acknowledge
..
Of course it is circular logic to say the Bible is inspired directly by God, because it says it is, they would say that wouldn't they? If it hadn't been there they'd have added it.
Mind you, I expect that any Christians starting to question, in that way you suggested, are not the sort that would remain believing the inerrant word stuff.
2007-07-20 01:10:12 · answer #5 · answered by hog b 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Church, the Bible, and the writings of the early church fathers prove that the truth is what brought Christians together ... and that truth has never changed.
There were certainly differences in beliefs and opinion, and there still is, but there's only one Jesus Christ, one Holy Spirit, one Church, and there's only one complete deposit of faith.
God's truth has a certain "ring" to it. It always has, and it always will.
That's why all that other stuff has been relegated to the dust heap of history. It's nonsense.
2007-07-20 02:13:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
bah how can anyone believe in text that is over 2000 years old? are we not aware of corruption? we are just that ignorant? anyways the only way to be sure of what you believe is to cast of the shackles of religion and sit down and ask yourself, "what do i feel about this subject in life? what answer makes me feel right?" isnt that what it's all about, finding yourself?
2007-07-20 01:09:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I thought Christians didn't believe in sects before marriage.
2007-07-20 01:01:07 · answer #8 · answered by Karen 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I thinketh for myself therefore I knoweth.
2007-07-20 01:20:34 · answer #9 · answered by firelight 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I see the NT being in harmony with the OT.
2007-07-20 01:01:09 · answer #10 · answered by RB 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋