 |
Two points. First, the oldest manuscripts available of the Septuagint provide no evidence that these books were included in the 1st century Septuagint.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Second, many books have been provided as reference material (though not canonical in Bible translations. Inclusion does not mean that they are part of the canon.
You asked Fred what text exists that was written by the Apostles but is not part of Scripture. Answer: the Didache. And it was part of the canon of Scripture for quite some time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I have no problem with Tradition, as you know. How do you justify your canon of Scripture? Since the Scriptures themselves do not provide a list of canonical books, you have no choice but to appeal to some extra-Biblical source. What is that source? Why, in particular, do you include the Gospel of Mark but exclude the Didache? It can't be that Mark was included and the Didache excluded at the Council of Nicaea, since the Council of Nicaea is extra-Biblical and to rely upon its decision would be to rely upon Tradition. It would, in fact, be to place Tradition above Scripture on account of the fact that the Council decided what is Scripture.
So, you cannot reject the Didache on the grounds that it was rejected by Nicaea. And you cannot accept Mark on the grounds that it was accepted by Nicaea. Either way, doing so would be a recognition of the authority of something extra-Biblical, i.e. Tradition. But neither can it be that the provenance of the Gospel of Mark is somehow loftier than that of the Didache: The Didache itself says that it was written by the Twelve Apostles; the Gospel of Mark does not claim to have been written by Mark--its attribution to Mark dates from the second century and is itself extra-Biblical. So by rights, you ought to be more comfortable with the Didache than with Mark.
And you can't claim to know that Mark was inspired but the Didache was not, since the Didache says that it was written by the Twelve while Mark doesn't say that it was written by Mark. Moreover, the mss. Of the Didache give us a much more certain picture of its intended content than do the mss. Of Mark which, as I explained, don't even agree about where the Gospel is supposed to end (is it ch.16, v.8 or is it ch.16, v.20?).
Since there isn't one universally recognized canon of Scripture, you must have some principled reason for using the canon that you do and rejecting all other books as non-canonical. What could that reason be, I wonder.
First, it is not know who the author or authors of this document are, and second, no it is not part of the canon, and never was. I don't know where you are getting your information from, but your source is faulty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Actually, you've got it exactly backwards: the earliest complete mss. Of the Septuagint are the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Codex Vaticanus includes all the books I listed with the exception of 1 & 2 Maccabees. Codex Sinaiticus includes Maccabees, along with Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, and Sirach. As you may know, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are the oldest extant mss. Of the Bible, including the NT. Included in the NT canon of Codex Sinaiticus are the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. If you mean that some translations of the Bible list these books as apocryphal or deuterocanonical, that's true. Those translations of the Bible which do not recognize the canonicity of these books nevertheless sometimes include them a reference material. But that just takes it for granted that those canons are correct. So, if this is what you are saying, it really isn't to the point. If I've misunderstood what you meant to say then perhaps you could reformulate your point.Quote:
Second, many books have been provided as reference material (though not canonical in Bible translations. Inclusion does not mean that they are part of the canon.
Check the dates of these manuscripts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
BTW, as I said, simple inclusion with another book does not make something canonical. I have a study Bible beside me which has many reference documents included - are you saying simple inclusion makes all those document canonical? I know of no scholar who would agree.
It isn't known who the author or authors of the Gospel of Mark were, either. The text of the Gospel itself doesn't tell us and, as with the other Gospels, it wasn't until the second century that it came to be associated with Mark. So the fact that we cannot verify authorship shouldn't pose any problem for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
No, the Didache is not part of the canon. But it was regarded as canonical by many early Christians, a fact attested to by John Damascene and the Apostolic Constitutions. We have historical evidence that it was regarded at canonical by many early Christians (prior to Nicaea), a fact which you can easily verify if you like. Some of it is available online. You can also read Metzger's books on the early canon. (BTW, Bruce Metzger was not Catholic. He was the leading scholar on the canon of the NT and taught at Princeton Theological Seminary for decades. If you haven't read his work you really should.) Or you can go to a good library and have a look at early canons of Scripture and see for yourself what was and what was not included by different people at different times. So while the Council of Nicaea regarded it as spurious, that shouldn' give you any grounds for rejecting it since you don't recognize the authority of the Council.
There is also this interesting fact: The Didache bears many striking similarities to the Gospel of Matthew (remember, we don't know who really wrote Matthew since the Gospel itself doesn't tell us and it wasn't known by this title until the second century). There is growing scholarly consensus that the Gospel of Matthew and the Didache were composed in proximity to each other (both in time and place). If the Gospel of Matthew was written by the Apostle, then this supports the idea that the Didache was written by the Apostles. Besides, the Didache tells us that it was written by the Apostles, while the Gospel of Mark does not tell us that it was written by Mark. Why are you suspicious of the claim of the Didache to apostolic authorship but credulous about the attribution of the Gospel of Mark to Mark when the Gospel itself doesn't tell us that he was its author? This attribution is itself a matter of Tradition, dating as it does to the second century.
There I disagree, but that is not the point - you claimed that this was written by the Apostles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Then the second part of the point being made by Fred and yourself dies.Quote:
No, the Didache is not part of the canon.
Interesting. So, you don't believe that there are atoms that make up matter? You don't believe in electrons? You don't believe that George Wahington or Winston Churchill existed?Quote:
Originally Posted by starbright200
They both date to the fourth century. As I've pointed out to you before, they are the oldest extant mss. Do you have some earlier mss. Squirreled away that no one knows about? Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the earliest mss. We have, with the exception of a few short fragments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
Which scholars have you been talking to? I don't know of anyone who takes the view that these texts weren't part of the canon of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Or do you suppose that ancient copyists included them for kicks, intermingling them with other recognizably canonical books. Let's see: They both include the Gospel of Matthew. Do you suppose that the Gospel of Matthew was not part of the canon? After all, it's just sitting there, included right alongside other books such as Mark and Tobit with nothing to indicate that the different books had varying status. Does your study Bible indicate that some books are apocryphal or deuterocanonical? Mine all do. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that they weren't considered canonical. They aren't set apart (you can verify this by checking the list in which the books appear in the mss.) as a group but are intermingled with books that we now recognize as canonical.Quote:
BTW, as I said, simple inclusion with another book does not make something canonical. I have a study Bible beside me which has many reference documents included - are you saying simple inclusion makes all those document canonical? I know of no scholar who would agree.
I said that it's authorship is no more in doubt than the authorship of any of the Gospels. You asked for a book written by the Apostles that isn't part of Scripture. I offered the Didache as a candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
How do you figure?Quote:
Then the second part of the point being made by Fred and yourself dies.
Agreed. Which verifies what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I fear that you may in fact be telling the truth when you say that you don't know anyone who takes the view that these text weren't part of the canon.Quote:
Which scholars have you been talking to? I don't know of anyone who takes the view that these texts weren't part of the canon of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
But once again, and perhaps you missed the point - simple inclusion does not make it part of the canon, and I know of no credible scholar who would disagree.
Where do you go to investigate?Quote:
Originally Posted by starbright200
What does it verify, Tom?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I'm saying that they were part of the canon of those two mss. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. There is no scholarly debate about this: It is universally regarded to be the case. Have you anything to offer that is dispositive? Can you cite any reputable Biblical scholars who take the view that they were not part of the canon of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus?Quote:
I fear that you may in fact be telling the truth when you say that you don't know anyone who takes the view that these text weren't part of the canon.
Inclusion in the canon of Scripture does make them part of the canon. As I say, and you can easily verify this for yourself, they are included intermingled with other books (and not set aside from other, recognizably canonical books), with nothing to indicate that they have any different status than the other books. You didn't answer my question: Does your study Bible produce these books together in a section titled something like "apocrypha" or "deuterocanonical books"? You see, by your reasoning we could just as easily claim that the Gospel of Matthew of the Book of Genesis weren't part of the canon either. They appear in both codices, without any explicit mention of their canonical status. Since the codices indicate no difference in canonical status among the books they include, and since we have considerable historical and documentary evidence that many Christians included these books among their canons, there are no rational grounds for supposing that their inclusion indicates anything other than their canonicity. What grounds have you for supposing that they were not regarded as canonical?Quote:
But once again, and perhaps you missed the point - simple inclusion does not make it part of the canon, and I know of no credible scholar who would disagree.
Did you forget what we were discussing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
And I am sure that you believe that top be true, but believing it and having evidence of it are two different things. So far you are assuming that inclusion with it means that they are canonical. An assumption that is a stretch as I already showed.Quote:
I'm saying that they were part of the canon of those two mss. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.
I was not aware that you were making decisions for the world on this.Quote:
There is no scholarly debate about this: It is universally regarded to be the case.
Did you? You asserted that the oldest mss. Of the Septuagint do not contain that books I mentioned (Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, Sirach, Wisdom). I corrected you: The oldest mss. Are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus and they do contain these books.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
What point of yours did you take the date of these codices to verify?
The evidence is as I have described it: The inclusion of these books intermingled with other canonical books and the absence of any indication that they were regarded as anything other than canonical. Have you any evidence that they were not regarded as canonical?Quote:
And I am sure that you believe that top be true, but believing it and having evidence of it are two different things. So far you are assuming that inclusion with it means that they are canonical. An assumption that is a stretch as I already showed.
Oh, yeah, that's right, you have a study Bible. Well, to reiterate: All the study Bibles I have seen indicate that a book is not canonical, typically by grouping it together with other non-canonical books under a heading that reads something like "apocrypha" or "deuterocanonical books". I've asked you, and you have refused to answer, whether your study Bible indicates that some book or books are not canonical. Does it? Or is the reader left to guess which books are canonical and which are not?
Again, there is no reason to believe that these books were not part of the official canon of these codices. If we are to follow your rather quixotic line of reasoning, then there would be no reason to regard any of the books contained in the codices as canonical, since they are all intermingled without any indication that some are and some are not canonical. You might just as well ask why we think that these codices are Bibles at all. It would be no more reasonable to suppose that these texts were not regarded as canonical than it would be to suppose that the Gospels were not regarded as canonical.
So, absent any evidence that one or more of the books contained in these codices of the Bible were regarded as uncanonical, it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that all of the books contained in them were regarded as canonical. After all, this situation with these codices is not at all like the situation with the Nag Hammadi texts.
More of the same, huh? By all means, provide references to reputable Biblical scholars who deny that these books were part of the canon of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. I am trying to have an intelligent conversation with you. I have kept up with the scholarly literature in several languages on these and other early codices for decades. I have worked on them myself. I have seen them and studied them. I am unaware of any reputable scholar who denies that they belonged to the canon of these codices. Please, if you know of any reputable scholars who hold the contrary view, provide the references.Quote:
I was not aware that you were making decisions for the world on this.
Really, Tom, given your evident interest in this stuff, you really should read some serious scholarly studies of the early Christian canon and mss. Traditions.
Not true. I asked you for evidence that they did. I also pointed out to you that just inclusion is not adequate to claim canonicity. And you failed to provide that evidence of your claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
The onus is on the person claiming canonicity, not for me to prove that they were not.Quote:
The evidence is as I have described it: The inclusion of these books intermingled with other canonical books and the absence of any indication that they were regarded as anything other than canonical. Have you any evidence that they were not regarded as canonical?
I have read far more than you could imagine. That is why I know that you are off base on your claims. Perhaps you should spend more time doing your own research than trying to put down others.Quote:
Really, Tom, given your evident interest in this stuff, you really should read some serious scholarly studies of the early Christian canon and mss. Traditions.
Then there must equally be no evidence that they included the Gospels in the canon. Odd that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
If you choose not to accept what I have provided as sufficient evidence of canonicity that is your choice. So long as you acknowledge that there is, then, no evidence that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus regard the four Gospels as canonical either. If you wish to do so, I have no quarrel with that.Quote:
The onus is on the person claiming canonicity, not for me to prove that they were not.
Why, then it should be as easy as pie to provide the names of those reputable Biblical scholars who take the view that these books were not part of the canon of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. If you could provide the book and article titles in which they make this claim that would be good too, as I would like to read them.Quote:
I have read far more than you could imagine. That is why I know that you are off base on your claims.
Interesting - I was not aware that you were also denying the gospels as canonical.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I don't - I don't see you as having the authority to define canonicity.Quote:
If you choose not to accept what I have provided as sufficient evidence of canonicity that is your choice.
Did you go and forget that we were talking about the canon as it is found in two codices, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus? Had I been made aware of your confusion earlier I would have attempted to help you remedy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
I accept the authority of Tradition to determine matters of canonicity. What do you use? To be clear, I am asking how you decided upon the particular canon that you use, in preference to the many others that have been and are today in use? Since none of the books of the Bible contains a list stating which are the genuinely inspired canonical books, and since you do not recognize any authority outside the Bible as determinative in such matters, how did you decide which canon to use? Did you select among those that were already in use, or did you decide one book at a time? And by what means did you certify that your choice or choices were correct, i.e. in accordance with God's will?
Akoue, are you having a senior's moment? You questioned whether the gospel were part of the canon - did YOU forget? Let me remind you by quoting you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
" Originally Posted by Akoue View Post
Then there must equally be no evidence that they included the Gospels in the canon. Odd that."
You place your faith in your denomination therefore. I don't. That is a key difference. When the canon was determine, your denomination did not exist. I accept that the Bible, as God's word, was defined in whole, both in scope and content by God alone.Quote:
I accept the authority of Tradition to determine matters of canonicity.
Yes, "they" refers to Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Wow, you really did lose it there for awhile, huh. You claimed that the mere inclusion of Tobit and Sirach and the others in the codices does not prove that they were regarded as canonical. I pointed out that there is nothing in the mss. To indicate that any of the books had a different canonical status from any of the others. Therefore, if the mere inclusion of Tobit and Sirach and the others isn't sufficient to show that they were members of the canon of those mss. Then, it follows, that the mere inclusion of the four Gospels in those mss. Isn't sufficient to show that they were members of the canon of those mss.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
When did I ever say anything about a denomination? You're jumping to conclusions again.Quote:
You place your faith in your denomination therefore. I don't. That is a key difference. When the canon was determine, your denomination did not exist. I accept that the Bible, as God's word, was defined in whole, both in scope and content by God alone.
You still haven't answered the question: How did you arrive at the canon you use? How did you decide which canon of Scripture is the one that is uniquely "defined in whole, both in scope and content by God alone"?
You are getting confused. Maybe you should sort out first whether you are talking about this specific translation, or the canonicity of the gospel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Finally you have read what I posted!Quote:
You claimed that the mere inclusion of Tobit and Sirach and the others in the codices does not prove that they were regarded as canonical.
Ah, so if I find other, perhaps heretical books bound together with canonical books, the canonicity somehow migrates by osmosis into the other books bound with them? Are you next going to tell me that all the books found with the Dead Sea scrolls are canonical because many were, and there was no differentiation made between the scrolls?Quote:
I pointed out that there is nothing in the mss. To indicate that any of the books had a different canonical status from any of the others. Therefore, if the mere inclusion of Tobit and Sirach and the others isn't sufficient to show that they were members of the canon of those mss. Then, it follows, that the mere inclusion of the four Gospels in those mss. Isn't sufficient to show that they were members of the canon of those mss.
The tradition to which you refer to denomination specific.Quote:
When did I ever say anything about a denomination? You're jumping to conclusions again.
I answered many times. You just don't like the answer.Quote:
You still haven't answered the question: How did you arrive at the canon you use? How did you decide which canon of Scripture is the one that is uniquely "defined in whole, both in scope and content by God alone"?
Yeah, Tom, unless you go back and re-read the last couple of pages you are going to remain as lost as you manifestly are right now. You can tell me it's me if you like, but the posts are there for anyone to read. You've pretty dramatically missed the point. Sorry to have lost you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
See, now this is why I mentioned Nag Hammadi. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are codices, bound books, with their contents arranged serially just as you would find in a modern book. The Dead Sea Scrolls (and this goes for Nag Hammadi as well) is a library of scrolls contained in lots of jars. The Dead Sea scrolls have been collected, edited, and translated, but the actual scrolls did not compose a single book but were part of a library. Just as the books in a public library cannot all together be regarded as a single book, so neither can the scrolls be regarded as a single book.Quote:
Ah, so if I find other, perhaps heretical books bound together with canonical books, the canonicity somehow migrates by osmosis into the other books bound with them? Are you next going to tell me that all the books found with the Dead Sea scrolls are canonical because many were, and there was no differentiation made between the scrolls?
A codex is a single bound book. Here we find the books of the Bible arranged in the way you find them in printed Bibles today, in just the same way that the chapters of a book are arranged. In the codices we are talking about, the books of Tobit, Sirach, and the rest are included within a single bound book, and that book is the Bible that was used by Christians of the fourth and fifth centuries. If the books included in these codices were individually stuffed into different jars and placed in a cave, then you'd be right to say that we cannot infer from their proximity that they were all regarded as canonical. But since that isn't the case, since they are found intermingled with books that are now regarded as canonical, scholars take them to have been members of the canons of these two codices. Now, if there were something within the codices to indicate that some of the books were considered canonical and others were not, then that would be one thing. But there isn't. There isn't any grouping or addenda which indicate that Tobit and Sirach and the others were held to be non-canonical.
And now let me see if I can help you to understand the point I made about when I mentioned the Gospels. There is nothing in these codices to indicate that they were regarded as any less canonical than the four Gospels. In a modern study Bible, the editors use various sorts of apparatus to indicate that some books are non-canonical, typically by segregating them and appending a heading that indicates that the books are apocryphal or deuterocanonical. There is nothing like this in the codices. So, if your argument is that the mere inclusion of these books in the codices of the Bible is insufficient that they are members of the canon of Scripture of the codices, then, by the very same reasoning, it could just as easily be said that the four Gospels are not members of the canon of these codices--this for the reason that, as I've explained, there is nothing to indicate that the Gospels and the books of Tobit and Sirach, etc. had any different canonical status. That being so, there needs to be some special reason for holding that these books (Tobit, Sirach, etc.) were not part of the canon of the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus.
Understand now? If not, then you're going to have to remain confused for awhile, because I'm heading to bed soon.
Perhaps you could explain how. I've spoken of Tradition in a very generic way.Quote:
The tradition to which you refer to denomination specific.
The only thing I can think of that might have been you answering my question is the one time, recently, when you suggested that I must deny prophetic revelation. Is your answer that you received a prophetic revelation and that is how you arrived at the canon you use?Quote:
I answered many times. You just don't like the answer.
If that's your answer then please confirm it, since I'm not at all sure that that's what you meant (you framed it as a question). If that isn't your answer, then no, you haven't answered the question.
Akoue, I don't know if your memory is the problem or it is your difficulty in avoiding abuse of others, or if you just are trying to distract from your difficulty with what scripture has to say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
It appears that I understand more than you do. You seem to feel that the more that you post, the truer it is, but it is no more convincing the 15th time as it was the first time, or when I first read the same material and arguments many years ago.Quote:
Understand now? If not, then you're going to have to remain confused for awhile, because I'm heading to bed soon.
Not as generic as you may think.Quote:
Perhaps you could explain how. I've spoken of Tradition in a very generic way.
Apparently my efforts to help oout of your confusion weren't appreciated. That's fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
You have once again managed to post without making a single substantive claim about the subject-matter under discussion. That's fine, too. I'm satisfied to leave it here. Oh, and you've totally outed yourself once again: There is just no way, given what you've posted, that you have even a passing familiarty with scholarship on the early NT canon and the manuscript tradition. And I'm not the only one reading this thread who has picked up on that fact.
Nighty-night.
I don't follow those who are so mixed up that they don't even remember what they said, but are absolutely certain that they alone are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Maybe a good nights sleep will help you clear your thoughts.
There is nothing like watching Bible believers argue about whose version is THE version. My point keeps being proven. No one KNOWS. So, why argue? Just be your best self people.
Though I will agree that a couple of folk on here are arguing about one translation as being "The Bible" (the Septuagint), I am not. I have used the Septuagint, but it is a translation, and a translation is not the source.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
I know, ain't it great? It's like bare-knuckle cage fighting. What a thrill.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
Actually, what they're really arguing about is whether the Catholic Church is God's Instrument on Earth, whose traditions define both which texts deserve to be regarded as Scripture, and how those texts should be interpreted. That's the source of the seething anger, bitter sarcasm and vicious put-downs in their "scholarly discussions" about manuscripts, codices, and canons. Family fights can get really ugly, can't they?
I like how you think, cozyQuote:
My point keeps being proven. No one KNOWS. So, why argue? Just be your best self people.
I don't care if she was ever a Christian or if she just thought she was a christian but wasn't because she wasn't following the correct Christian doctrine. Geez O Petes! This whole thing is so silly. How can any Christian believe they are exclusively better when that very belief causes them to behave immorally towards others? I don't think I'll ever understand why Christians think they are not out of line when they go putting their noses so far up someone else's a**.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunflowers
Unfortunately, you are right! I also wonder why so many Christians consider they are above and beyond the Law (God’s Law, that is) and believe they are better than those who walk the line though they may not be Christians. That reminds me always of the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18:9-14).
Although, as a Christian (RCC) I am convinced there are more Publicans than Pharisees, I admit that no matter how few of the latter we may have they do not set a good example to those who enjoy finding as many defects as possible to our religion.:):)
I do believe that...
Christians are human beings and therefore imperfect beings like all other humans.
Some do err more than others but I believe that most, if not all, try to live their lives better than if they were not Christians and that transends all the different denominations.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
That sounds like you believe that christians corner the market on good behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
Christians have no corner on good behaviour, but there are two important difference for Christians:Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
1) Christians have a standard of moral conduct provided to us in scripture, and with the help to obey it through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
2) Christians are not perfect and do fail. Scripture says all are sinners and that includes Christians. Christians differ in that they have accepted Jesus' offer to pay the price for sin that we rightly deserve. That offer is open for all.
[QUOTE=Tj3;1660029]Christians have no corner on good behaviour, but there are two important difference for Christians:
I and many other people I know live by a high moral code that has nothing whatsoever to do with any scripture.Quote:
1) Christians have a standard of moral conduct provided to us in scripture, and with the help to obey it through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The difference is that for Christians the moral code is unchanging. For others, that moral code is personal, and is defined by experience and is good for this person in this timeframe. It has no anchor to prevent it from changing.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
CozyK
Yes you are right there are many people with a high moral code that they have chosen to follow.
BUT often that moral code is not the same as the one that is established by Christianity in Holy Scripture which is, as Tj3 said unchanging.
If a person who is not a Christian follows a moral code like that of Christianity, I wonder from where they got that...
Have you ever considered the fact that in the laws in many nations are based on the Jewish/Christian moral code?
Peace and kindness,
Fred
I believe that you are underestimating your own GOD GIVEN intelligence when you rely on something someone wrote down to be your moral guide. Are you telling me that you would not be able to keep it straight what is right or wrong if you couldn't refer to it in a book?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
And what about the gray areas? "Thou shalt not kill" Ever?? There are times we are called to make a decision that may not be covered in the bible. The God within us guides us in our decisions if we just listen to Him. Life is fluid and circumstances we face may not be something that was covered in a book written so long ago. Maybe there should have been a bible sequel? Possibly a running sequel. The bible IS a little out dated don't you think? Where is the guide for the 21st century? Twenty one centuries is a long time for nothing new to be added.
[QUOTE=arcura;1660131]cozyK
This is what I think...
With you there.Quote:
Yes you are right there are many people with a high moral code that they have chosen to follow.
Still with you. It's a good place to start. The unchanging part is actually the down side.Quote:
BUT often that moral code is not the same as the one that is established by Christianity in Holy Scripture which is, as Tj3 said unchanging.
Refer to my post about the gray area where you are left to your own God Given intelligence to make a choice. Not everything is just black or white.
I don't know where I got my initial ideas. Probably a combination of my Christian up bringing, parental teachings, laws, and the bad feeling I get when I know I am behaving in a way that is not pleasing to my God. That was the infancy of my choices. Since then, my choices are guided by a much higher power. Call it my conscience or call it the God within. It does not lie to me. Even if my ego tries to fool it, make bargains with it, or even if laws were changed and it was "legal" to do certain things that used to be frowned upon. My ultimate guide would still be my conscience.Quote:
If a person who is not a Christian follows a moral code like that of Christianity, I wonder from where they got that...
You miossed what I said. I don't rely solely upon the written as a moral guide to how I behave - Ialso have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to guide me on a day by day basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
Go back to the original Hebrew. The word translated kill actually is "murder". Should you not murder ever? No, you shouldn't.Quote:
And what about the gray areas? "Thou shalt not kill" Ever??
That is where the Holy Spirit comes in.Quote:
There are times we are called to make a decision that may not be covered in the bible.
The Holy Spirit only indwells believers.Quote:
The God within us guides us in our decisions if we just listen to Him.
John 7:39
39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive;
NKJV
The Bible is not outdated at all. When did you last read it?Quote:
The bible IS a little out dated don't you think? Where is the guide for the 21st century? Twenty one centuries is a long time for nothing new to be added.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:20 PM. |