Kurgan--

Well a critical scholar would probably say that no, the Bible was not closd until much later, as you have all sorts of manuscript variations and different canons stretching out to the third century and beyond....

My statement isn't concerned with various canons of various groups. It is concerned with the canon we have today, and the best scholarship indicates quite clearly that all of the manuscripts contained in the present canon were written before AD 95.

The "higher critics" like Rudolf Bultmann make no pretense of trying to exegete (read out of) the text. Their approach is to aggressively eisegete (read into) the text and impose their own biases and prejudices on the text. Bultmann, for example, said that no person who has ever seen an electric lightbulb could ever believe in miracles. To him it is impossible that there could be accurate prophecy in the Bible, so if there is a Scripture passage that makes prophetic reference to, say, the destruction of Jerusalem, then obviously this "prophecy" was composed after the event, and we must date it later than the witness of the document itself would allow. So the "higher critics" would place much later dates on many of these documents (such as the Gospel of John), which of course would make them not only fraudulent but of spurious authorship.

The problem these critics have is that the archaelogical evidence keeps getting in the way of their bias. For example, the famous Rylands Fragment of John 18 was found in Egypt, dated about about AD 125, proving that the Gospel of John had been in circulation long before the higher critics claimed it had been written.

So at some point you have to decide which critics are you going to listen to, the ones who have a biased and dishonest eisegetical approach to Scripture, the ones who have been proven wrong again and again? Or the scholars whose respectful views of Scripture are continually reaffirmed by the evidence, and by the internal consistency of the Bible itself?

Again, I say, if you are trying to get back to "first century Christianity" I ask you WHICH first century Christianity are you trying to get back to?

The only first century Christianity that can be shown to have ever objectively existed, the one that is embodied in the New Testament documents themselves.

A critical scholar would argue...

As explained above, :OP~~~~~ to the critical scholars. Their track record, when compared with archeology and other objective findings, is dismal.

We have a NT canon made up of reliable documents, which are eminently readable and understandable. My conclusion to my previous post relates to the fact that Conor and I come at things from two different premises which can never be reconciled: He believes in church authority and tradition as being on par with Scripture. I believe in the authority of Jesus and Scripture alone.

Every other disagreement he and I have had stems from that one core difference between us. I just will never be able to agree that doctrines and practices that were confirmed in the year 600 or 1247 or 1950 can be considered original first century Christianity. The only objectively verifiable first century Christianity is that which is embodied in the NT documents.

--wiz

Well, I said I'd post a bit on Peter and Apostolic Authority. Here is 'a bit' http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/tongue.gif)

I got the outline and passages from an apologetics booklet of mine, so this isn't exactly my research.

---------------------------------------------

When God established His Covenant with Israel in the OT he provided a living, continuing authority in the Mosaic priesthood.

"And behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the Lord; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the governor of the house of Judah, in all the kings matters; and the Levites will serve you as officers. Deal courageously, and may the Lord be with the upright!" 2 Chr 19:11

"For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts." Malachi 2:7

They had authority from God to govern His people in matters of religion, and acted as the safeguard and authentic interpreter of Sacred Scripture. It follows that when Christ founded His Church, the New Israel, He set up a living, continuing authority to teach, govern and sanctify in His name. We call this authority "Apostolic" because it began with the twelve Apostles and continued with their successors. This authority would keep and authentically interpret the Revelation of Jesus. We believe they will preserve the teachings of Jesus Christ in their wholeness, and uncorrupted by error, until the end.

St. Peter was clearly the head of the Apostles. In Mat 16:13-19 Jesus says, "And so I say to you, you are Peter [which means Rock -my comment], and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, or Rock. Name changes are always very important in Scripture, such as the renaming of Abram to Abraham. Jesus is telling Peter that he is the rock that the church will be built on. Jesus can't just mean 'everyone' here because in the next lines He specifically empowers Peter with certain responsibilities and authority. When Jesus gives Peter the 'keys to the kingdom of heaven' He is drawing on the 'keys' image of Is 22:19-22.

"I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open."

From this it can be gathered that:

1. Keys are a symbol of the authority given to the chief official-the Prime Minister-of the Kingdom of David.

2. The Prime Minister is a father figure. Pope comes from Italian "Papa," father.

3. The office implies dynastic succession. The office continued as long as the Kingdom of David continued.

Catholics believe that Christ is the King and the Pope is his Prime Minister. Christ is the head of the Church, and the Pope is His earthly representative.

Why would Jesus give all this authority to Peter and not intend for it to be passed on? If the first Christians needed an authoritative leader, later Christians would need one even more. After the Apostles died the Church would have greater need of the power of the keys when enemies would try to corrupt Christ's teachings.

In Mt 18:18 the rest of the Apostles were given the power to bind and loose. St. Peter received that power individually when he was given the keys. Christ would not have given Peter and the other Apostles such authority if He was not going to protect them from teaching false doctrine in their official positions as Shepherds of the Church.

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." Lk 22:31-32

"When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' A second time he said to him, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' And he said to him, 'Lord, you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'" Jn 21:15-17

In the passage from Luke, Satan specifically asks for Peter. Jesus prays for Peter and tells him to strengthen the other disciples. In the passage from John, Jesus clearly makes Peter the shepherd of His Church.

Acts 15 gives an account of the first Church council, that of Jerusalem. St. Paul requested it to decide whether Gentiles had to follow the Law of Moses as well as the Law of Christ. After much discussion Peter spoke, and the assembly fell silent. The discussion was ended. The council considered Peter's authority final.

Peter often spoke for the rest of the apostles, such as in Mt 19:27, Mk 8:29, Lk 12:41 and Jn 6:69. The Apostles are referred to as "Peter and his companions" at times (Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7, Acts 2:37). Peter's name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-16, Acts 1:13). Peter's name is mentioned (roughly, I have heard a couple different values, both close) 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times). John comes second, at 48 times.

Peter is involved in all the Church's important "firsts." Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle (Acts 1:13-26), preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment on Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic, Simon the magician (Acts 8:21). He is the first to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-41), and received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16). He also commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

The early Church has always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 AD, the Church of Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth that was Rome. Clement wrote this, "You, therefore, who laid the foundation of the rebellion, submit to the presbyters and be chastened to repentance, bending your knees in a spirit of humility." (First letter to the Corinthians, 57, 1; Jurgens, p. 12, #27).
"If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." (First letter to the Corinthians, 59, 1; Jurgens, p. 12, #28a).

St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Polycarp (a disciple of St. John the Apostle), says that Christians must be united to the Church of Rome in order to maintain the Apostolic Tradition. He presents this teaching as something taken for granted.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a small volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all the Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition." (3,3,2; Jurgens, p. 90, #210). St. Irenaeus was bishop of Lyons from about 180-200 AD. The quote came from Against Heresies.

For 250 years, the Roman Emperors tried to destroy Christianity through persecution. In the first 200 years of Christianity, every Pope but one was martyred. The Romans knew who the head of the Church was. A Roman's greatest fear was a rival to the throne. Yet Emperor Decius (249-251 AD), one of the harshest persecutors of the early Christian Church, said this, "I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than of another bishop of Rome." He said this after executing Pope Fabian in 250 AD.

---------------------------------------------


------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited May 05, 2000).]

Bultmann? You guys are talking deep - I haven't heard much of that name (or von Rad for that matter!) since I completed my BA in Religion with Biblical Emphasis! I live near Claremont Theological Seminary in CA, and I've visited their library, a building with 3 stories devoted to works surrounding the Bible, Christianity, etc. - more information than one person could process in a lifetime!

There's 9 pages and 200 repsonses of this conversation, and I admit I haven't come close to reading all - in fact I've only glanced over a few here and there. But what's the point here? Where is this whole conversation leading? Entering the kingdom of heaven isn't about debates, is it? I think we probably more people away than we attract with all that, and I didn't see Jesus doing much of it (other than with the Pharisees, etc. and that was more of a confrontation).

I agree with Conor's thing on page one - only use words when necessary! When was the last time we (as Christians) labored in prayer over someone in need until the need was met? or fed a hungry person? or visited a widow or a prisoner? (and I'm not talking just about activities performed with an outreach group organized by some ministry, but just on your own as the need arised), you know "true religion" according to James. So far this conversation seems most like what Paul saw in Athens (or which ever city it was), a lot of endless debating.

Anyone else have a prayer request they'd like prayed over?

Let me try to explain what has to be cleansed with Purgatory.

This is something well known to all. When you sin, especially something very enjoyable, that sin is much easier to commit the next time. We can be forgiven it, but we still have that mark, that scar on our soul, that makes it much easier to commit the sin again.

Obviously forgivness doesn't get rid of this. The effects of the sin linger and disfigure our soul. We are unclean even if our sins are forgiven. These disfigurements and scars must be dealt with before we enter Heaven. That is what we believe Purgatory is for.

I am actually not certain Luther's motives were to 'restore first-century Christianity'. I guess I should give him the benefit of the doubt, but I can't see what basis he had to think he was returning to anything.

I do admit indulgences can be a hard thing to swallow though. They can only be considered seriously if you believe the Pope and the Church has been given the authority to do such by Christ.

It has been my understanding that when a council affirms a doctrine like that of Purgatory it is not declaring anything new, but often reacting to a heresy that denies it or countering a fallacy. That is why most councils come at times of trouble.

Sorry! I guess I had a hickup.

All that just to say this: when I graduated, my head was full of all this Biblical knowledge - I knew a lot about God (Abraham's), Jesus, the Bible...but I didn't know Him very well, and I just about resented the knowledge in my head because it far outweighed the other. I know people I could destroy in a theological debate, but who I can't come close to as far as the love in their heart for God and people, as far as how scripture just isn't in their head but woven into their being in the way they live and love. I know people who don't know as much as me but who are a lot more like Jesus than me! And I also have friends who live and minister like he did - they fed the poor on their own out of their own pocket, they love on people I wouldn't get too close to because of the smell, they've even healed the deaf and sick and set people free from demonic bondage...

I'd rather walk there than in the debates that will never end...I'm not there yet but I hope to be soon...I'll leave the debating up to others - as a friend once told me "If I can argue someone into the Kingdom, there's probably someone who can argue them out, but if people get loved into the Kingdom, or healed in or woman-at-the-well'ed in, you get a lifer!"

This is not a debate! At least it won't be until someone says they are absolutely correct and can only teach others the "truth" (I'm afraid we might be getting there, or we may already be there). I am only here to learn, and will never admit I am totally correct, ESPECIALLY on matters such as this where it is so easy to see that throughout the ages the doctrines we read now have been "fuzzied" with ritual and translation. I think we are not so much as attacking Conor's beliefs as we are attacking his claim that he is undoubtedly correct. He states that he has seen all the evidence Wiz has provided, but nothing will sway him away from beliefs in (pick what you like and place it here). I think this is dangerous. You shouldn't look for reasons not to believe until you have reasons to believe, and I must admit his reasons to believe just don't seem logical. They do have some intellectual merit, but he bases his entire claim of complete correctness (specifically in the church) from assumptions that couldn't possibly be guaranteed. So you see, I don't think this is a debate until both sides say "I'm right, and listen why". It is more as if we are saying "From what I know, this is what I see that follows".

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/icons/icon14.gif) to everyone who has posted on this page.

I also don't consider this a debate in the usual sense. Only a couple of times has it been a bit heated--and it has never been heated between my friend Conor and me, as much as we have differed on so many things.

Conor, while I'm thinking of it, I want to thank you for bringing RARE EARTH to my attention, because the information in that book has become a major facet of the argument in my chapter on Miracles. (If it's okay with you, I'd like to list your name in the acknowledgements.) Thank you!

To quite-gone gin--

I don't know if people encountering this discussion would find it off-putting, as you suppose, or merely boring. (The latter, I suspect.)

I know people I could destroy in a theological debate, but who I can't come close to as far as the love in their heart for God and people, as far as how scripture just isn't in their head but woven into their being in the way they live and love.

You make a very good point. I hope that it is evident in what is posted here that no one is out to rhetorically "destroy" anyone in a theological "debate." I heartily agree that a heart full of Christlike love is of far more value than a head full of theological facts.

...as a friend once told me "If I can argue someone into the Kingdom, there's probably someone who can argue them out, but if people get loved into the Kingdom, or healed in or woman-at-the-well'ed in, you get a lifer!"

Absolutely true. Thanks for that valuable reminder.

I think I can speak for both Conor and myself in saying that this has been very much a learning exercise for both of us. I certainly understand Catholicism much better today than I did a few weeks ago. Even though I do not acknowledge the perfection or infallibility of doctrine that the Catholic church claims, and even though I have been critical of periods of Catholic history, I think Conor would agree when I say that I'm not antiCatholic or bashing Catholicism. We are both stating our perceptions and learning from each other. I think we are doing so in a spirit of Christian brotherhood. I consider Conor very much my brother in Christ.

And I see that TheAhnFahn's role in this discussion has been to challenge illogic and keep our noses to a grindstone of intellectual honesty. It has been a helpful learning exercise all around, I'm sure.

I hope that perspective is helpful, quite-gone. Thanks for posting your thoughts and concerns.

--wiz

------------------
"God never wrought a miracle to convince atheism
because his ordinary works convince it."
--FRANCIS BACON (1551-1626)

[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 05, 2000).]

While doing some web research for my book, I came across some quotes that made me LOL (even if I don't agree with them):

And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"

They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed."

And Jesus replied, "What?"

.

"I think I'll believe in Gosh instead of God. If you don't believe in Gosh too, you'll be darned to heck."

.

"If there were an afterlife, Isaac Asimov would have written a book about it by now."

--wiz

Well okay, so you're saying that the only Chrisianity that existed in the beginning was the one portrayed in the New Testament.

So that would mean that the noncanonical Christian writings would all have to be written later. And you would have to "prove" that all of the documents in the NT agree on points of theology, etc. I'm sure you have already done this in part.

I however would say that you still have to pick and choose which ones to follow, as there was much variety in the early Church, just as there is in the modern Church, and just as there was in the Jewish nation before their oral scriptures were finally written down.

Any group that wrote anything later would reject any notion that scripture was "closed" (until of course, their writings were made). A traditional Jew would probably say the same thing about the Christian scriptures.. the were later additions to the bible, that was already closed. They would assert that Christians had no right to "close" their scriptures to begin with.

Kurgan

Kurgan--

Thx for the chance to clarify.

Well okay, so you're saying that the only Chrisianity that existed in the beginning was the one portrayed in the New Testament.

Not exactly. I'm saying the only form of Christianity that can be objectively verified is that which we derive directly from the NT. I'm sure there were aspects and features of the early church that didn't get recorded in the NT, of which I am unaware, but if they are not recorded in the NT, I don't consider them of any importance.

So that would mean that the noncanonical Christian writings would all have to be written later.

No, that does not logically follow.

I worked with Reggie White on his autobiography published in 1996. That is the definitive autiobio of Reggie White. If you want to know his story in his own words, you have to read that book. Does that mean nothing was ever written or published about Reggie before 1996? No. But whether it came before or after that date, if it is not that book, it is not Reggie's definitive story in his own words.

The NT is the definitive blueprint for the Christian church. Many other things have been written around that time, some earlier, some later than the last-written book of the NT, but I don't consider them definitive for doctrine unless they are in today's NT.

About five or ten years ago, I read many of the noncannonical books of the NT era in a book called THE LOST BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. It was interesting reading, but it was pretty clear as I read through them why they were not included as Scripture. A lot of it was pretty silly. I'm hazy on the details now, but I remember some really silly stuff about the boyhood of Christ, describing some really ridiculous and utterly meaningless miracles he supposedly did.

Some of the church epistles were very similar to what Paul wrote, I recall, but they all had some very quirky stuff as well. When you read the NT, you get a strong sense of agreement on the common theme that runs through it all. In fact, there is an amazing consistency from Genesis to Revelation. It's all about one thing: God's plan to redeem the human race from sin.

I however would say that you still have to pick and choose which ones to follow, as there was much variety in the early Church, just as there is in the modern Church, and just as there was in the Jewish nation before their oral scriptures were finally written down.

I'm not sure what kind of variety you mean. Certainly there were cultural and side-issue differences between the churches in Rome, Asia (Turkey), Greece, and Africa. But all of those churches were governed by essentially the same Scriptures. Now, if you're talking about splinter groups like the Gnostics--why would I be interested in adopting the theology of a dead cult?

A traditional Jew would probably say ... They would assert that Christians had no right to "close" their scriptures to begin with.

I feel like I bump up against some curious assumptions in your argument, but I'm not sure what they are. For example, the Old Testament being "their" Scriptures. I think of the OT as OUR Scriptures, something Jews and Christians have in common. I have also felt that the more we know and appreciate about Judaism, the better we understand the origin of Christianity. There is a seamless continuity that both Judaism and Christianity belong to.

About the NT: One of the assumptions I begin with, rooted in evidence and experience, is that God managed to preserve for us the Bible He intends us to have. When that is your assumption, you don't really care if one second century splinter group adopted a different canon or if some other group added a third testament or whatever. You know that the book you have holds together with remarkable consistency and applicability. It makes a good blueprint for a church.

It is also endlessly adaptable, so that churches built on this blueprint could take the form of a liturgical institutional church, a laid-back church meeting in a school cafeteria with rock music for hymns, a secret house church meeting in Communist China, or even an AA meeting (which has much in common with NT Christianity). When I say the NT has the blueprint, I don't mean everybody has to speak Koine Greek and dress in first century robes. I just mean that the essential pattern is there, but we can adapt it in many ways without in any way losing the essence of NT Christianity.

--wiz


[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 07, 2000).]

Kurgan, another thought--

I said:

I'm saying the only form of Christianity that can be objectively verified is that which we derive directly from the NT.

That statement is arguable, of course, because a lot of people would not consider the NT a valid objective source. It is only a valid objective source is we establish first that it is reliable. Since that is something I did to my own satisfaction long ago (through a period of doubting, researching, and reaffirming), then I start with the reliability of the NT as a bedrock assumption. Perhaps that's the reason some of my assertions seem off-kilter to you. I make a statement with the reliability of the NT as a given, and you (either not making that same assumption or taking a Devil's advocate position, I'm not sure which) question the seemingly ill-founded statement I made.

Hope that clarifies.

--wiz

The only thing is, how would you know, objectively, the the writings in the New Testament (or even the current english Protestant Bible) are the true or only ones that are "correct"?

Are you saying the writings outside of this "modern bible" are not divinely inspired?

And why not? Simply because they do not agree with modern Protestant theology and doctrines?

It seems to me a cyclical argument to say the only writings that belong in the bible are the ones that are in it, and the only ones that belonged in the bible in the first place were the ones that ended up in it.

How do you know, or are you just assuming that God would make the canonical organizers infallible? The bible itself does not list a canon, or if anything, it says that all scripture is inspired by God! (and then what is "scripture" ?).

This website has a ton of stuff. Btw, the infancy gospels of Thomas (about Jesus and his wacky youth were supposedly written in the middle ages):

http://wesley.nnc.edu/noncanon.htm)

We're not talking merely about differences of opinion or cultural differences, although I can see how you would put it that way. That is your belief. That, to me, is sort of like people like ZoomRabbit who say "all religions are basically the same, on the important points." But I think that is putting it a bit too simply.

Read "the Second Treatise of the Great Seth" or "The Trimorphic Protennoia" and tell me why those are not inspired by God, but the books in the current NT are.

This gets back to the OT canon argument. How do you know which books are inspired and which aren't? If a book doesn't seem to "fit" that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't inspired. Maybe the reason it doesn't fit is because the rest of the bible isn't inspired! The Ethopian Church has had extra books that the Catholic and Protestant bibles lack for centuries.. and the Catholics have books the Protestants don't have, and the Jews, they see the Christians who have a whole other set of books they consider utter heresy and nonsense. And the Muslims have a whole book besides the bible, the Koran, which to them is even "more correct" than the Bible itself. So how do we know who's right? Are they all "basically the same" after all?

A Gnostic Christian, an Adoptionist, a Marcionite, a Monophysite, and a Docetist would say they have the true writings, that there writings were around at the same time or before the ones you call the New Testament, and that the only reason their writings aren't in the "Bible" now are because YOUR group conspired to exclude them. Of course they would expect the true Christians to be persecuted by those who want to withhold the truth. ; )

Many of their writings show Jesus and the Apostles saying the sorts of things that would mean that group's beliefs are correct. How do you know they didn't say those things, but said what the proto-orthodox writings that ended up in the NT are what they DID say? And many of these other groups are still around. What would you say to them?

As to my being a devil's advocate or not. I want to accept the NT as a starting point, that would make it much simpler of course, but I cannot honestly do this for myself. I do not see objective evidence enough to validate it as a true starting point of reliability.

Perhaps, and this is not a slam of any kind, but you are so entrenched in your belief that the NT as we have it today is the perfect, infallible document of Christianity in the world, that you can't admit the possibility that it could be wrong. But I don't know that for sure, I am just throwing out ideas here. ; )

Do I know the Bible is the perfect and infallible source of Divinely Inspired revelation and the rest of the documents that claim those things for themselves (or are claimed by others) are not? I don't. If you can, tell me how I would know (other than higher sales figures of course).

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited May 07, 2000).]

Here's an example of diversity in Jewish belief.. the Sadducees believed there was no resurrection of the dead, and followed a liberal interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures (as they were at the time).

The Pharisees taught strict observanve of The Law as the way for a person to live, and they believed in resurrection of the Dead.

The Essenes believed the Jerusalem Temple had become corrupt, and that only their group was preserving the true purity of God's Law. They believed in the imminent coming of the Messiah in a very short time (within their lifetimes). They believed they were the "Sons of Light" and the rest were the "Sons of Darkness." God would soon bring the Sons of Light to victory, and establish the Messianic Kingship on earth and wipe out their enemies, the Sons of Darkness, who were led astray or went willingly into the error of Satan.

This was at the time of Jesus mind you, but these groups had been around before his time.

During early Christian times, you had people who believed Jesus was God, and others who believe he had no physical body and only appeared to die on the cross.

Now for a person like yourself who accepts the teaching of Paul and his disciples that Jesus's Death and Resurrection are the most important things, and you have to have faith to be saved would be totally contradicted by their beliefs.

There are those who say that the OT God and the NT God are not the same. The OT God, they call the Demiurge. A created, inferior deity, who is evil and controls matter. Only by Gnosis are we saved. The "knowledge" that we are divine beings, and we must return to a true spirit. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter! -Yoda


Others believe that Jesus was only an "Adopted" son, that is he was a special kind of prophet, but not equal to God.

Others believed that Jesus was somewhere between an angel and a human, but not human, and not God.

Others thought that a person must remain Jewish in all practices and belief, but accept Jesus as the Messiah (the earthly precursor to the Son of Man who was to come to usher in God's Messianic Kingdom in the future).

Others said Jesus had only one nature (not two). Some of these believed he was divine only, others, human only.

Many of these groups asserted that only those that adhered to their specific doctrines were truly "saved." This phenomenon of sectarianism persists today in many circles.

At the time some of these groups believed the Jews were also saved (such as the author of Revelation) but others thought that only if the Jews became Christians could they be saved.

And the thing is, not only the Gnostics and the proto-orthodox, but every group wrote their own gospels and books, and letters. Otherwise we wouldn't know about many of them, as they no longer have large followings. Some have started to come back in forth though. Many would say that Gnostic beliefs live on in the "New Age" movement. But there are small pockets of true Gnostics still around, and of course you can read their books and listen to their lectures online. They are sincere and honest people, who feel that their beliefs are correct, and the rest are merely misguided or corruptions of history. They were "right" from the beginning.

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited May 07, 2000).]

Wiz,
Some other points to consider.

The Gnostics are still around. They would most likely object to being called "a dead cult." They are as dead as any other religion that has faithful followers and practices to this day. As to the number of true Gnostics in the world, it is probably at most 1,000 members. But does that mean it isn't true? These are mainly intelligent, searching people, not some drugged out wackos. They can certainly claim to have "been there," as their tradition goes back to the time of Christ (if not before).

If they are a "dead cult" then there are a bunch of "dead cults" around, because there are many groups that have that many followers. They just don't get recognized unless they commit mass suicide or get raided by the FBI.

Also, one cannot claim that the noncanonical writings are not true because "they aren't around today." They are, and have been for some time. Since 1945 actually..

I'm not sure when exactly the Gnostic writings "disapeared." Probably around the time that "Christianity" was made the state religion of Rome. The proto-orthodox was the largest group at the time, and so they were judged by the Romans as the "official" Christianity that was to be adopted. But was that a good decision?

A Gnostic would say that God saw to it to bring back his TRUE law and gospel, as it was being hidden from evil men for a time.

That was the whole point of the movie "Stigmata."

The earliest writings we have from the Gnostics are from the second century, but the content can be dated to the time of Christ, just like the rest of the "canonical" gospels. Sure there are some other later writings mixed in, but for the most part, they're from the "source" so to speak.

Was it any coincidence that the state of Israel was established soon after they were found? Was it any mystery that each scroll was rescued from almost certain destruction, and now they are being published for the whole world to read? If they were so wicked and wrong, wouldn't God, have destroyed them? That is what they would likely say to that.

Does popular opinion really determine divine truth?

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited May 07, 2000).]

Hi, Kurgan.

...how would you know, objectively, the the writings in the New Testament (or even the current english Protestant Bible) are the true or only ones that are "correct"?
Are you saying the writings outside of this "modern bible" are not divinely inspired?

And why not? Simply because they do not agree with modern Protestant theology and doctrines?

No.

I believe the Bible we have was deliberately preserved in order to transmit to us the truth that God wants us to have about Himself. I am convinced of the validity of this Bible because this Bible agrees with itself. I don't mean in a circular-reasoning way. I mean in terms of objective evidence.

The ancient writings that are not part of the Bible are just that: ancient writings. I figure if God considered them part of His own self-revelation to the human race, He would have made sure they got included. Whatever the process was, they didn't get included. What do those non-canonical books have to recommend them? Do they make accurate prophecies? The books of the existing Bible do. If these other ancient writings do not demonstrate the kind of power and validity that the Bible documents show, then they are nothing but historical curiosities. They are not Scripture.

Here's how my reasoning works relative to the validity of the Bible: If the Bible really is God's revelation of Himself to the human race, then it should be internally consistent from Genesis to Revelation. Though written by many human hands, it should speak with one voice.

(Which Bible? Catholic or Protestant? Doesn't matter. Let's keep it loose. Leave the Deuterocanonical books in there, it doesn't really change the argument.)

Here's one example of how the different books of the Bible speak with one voice--we talked about this in the old God thread, so you may remember this quote from my post:

For example, Daniel 9:24-26 (New International Version) states:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.
25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.
26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This prophecy was made by Daniel some time before 500 BC, while Jerusalem lay in ruins after being sacked by the Babylonians. It states that the long-awaited Messiah would come 483 years (“seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens'” equals 483) after the issuing of a proclamation to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. That decree was issued by the Persian King Artaxerxes to the Hebrew priest Ezra in 458 BC. Jesus began his ministry in Galilee exactly 483 years later. Note that verse 26 of Daniel 9 says that “the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.” This is a clear reference to the crucifixion of Christ. After the Anointed One is cut off and killed, says Daniel, “the people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.” In 70 AD, about four decades after the crucifixion, Jerusalem was destroyed again, this time by a Roman, Titus. The great temple of Jerusalem (“the sanctuary”) was completely destroyed, and has never been rebuilt. Today, an Islamic mosque, The Dome of the Rock, stands where the ancient temple once stood.

So here is an amazing degree of evidentiary agreement between the Book of Daniel and the Gospels, which were written nearly 600 years apart. I just encountered another similar instance a few weeks ago that I had never heard of before. This takes a few paragraphs to develop, but the conclusion is so powerful and astounding, that it is worth following the argument carefully.

In Genesis 49:10 we find this prophecy from Jacob to his son Judah: "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come. ..."

The word Shiloh is a Hebrew word for “he to whom it belongs.” In other words, the scepter or symbol of authority shall not depart from Judah until the one to whom it belongs comes to claim it. Hebrew scholars, for hundreds of years before Christ, always understood this to be a reference to the coming Messiah. So this prophecy by Jacob not only predicts the coming of the Messiah, but states that the Messiah must come before the "scepter" (the legal authority, sovereignty, and tribal identity) is removed from the tribe of Judah.

Now, let’s step away from the Bible for a moment and look at the history books. Josephus, the Jewish historian, writing in Antiquities of the Jews (20:9), describes a most amazing event:

After the death of the procurator Festus, when Albinus was about to succeed him, the high priest Ananias considered it a favorable opportunity to assemble the Sanhedrin. He therefore caused James, the Brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, and several others, to appear before this hastily assembled council, and pronounced upon them the sentence of death by stoning. All the wise men and strict observers of the law who were at Jerusalem expressed their disapprobation of this act.... Some even went to Albinus himself, who had departed to Alexandria, to bring this breach of the law under his observation, and to inform him that Ananius had acted illegally in assembling the Sanhedrin without the Roman authority.

Here, Josephus not only affirms the historical reality of Jesus and His half-brother James, but also makes note of a crucial historical fact: The Sanhedrin had no authority to pass a death sentence. At one time, even during the Roman occupation, the Judean Jews had retained the right to pronounce judgment and sentence capital cases (what the Romans called the jus gladii), but at a certain point in Jewish history, this right--this scepter of authority!--was removed from Judah.

When was the scepter removed from Judah? The Palestinian Talmud (one of the two Jewish Talmuds, along with the Babylonian Talmud), tells us exactly when this power was taken away by the Roman government:

A little more than forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the power of pronouncing capital sentences was taken away from the Jews.

How did the Jewish leaders view the removal of this power? They viewed it as the negation of the God's promise through Jacob to the people of Judah, as recorded in Genesis 49:10. They saw it as the annulment of God's prophecy. Though God had promised that the scepter of power and authority would not depart from Judah until the coming of the Messiah, Rome had deposed Archelaus, the king of Judah, stripped the scepter from Judean hands, and placed all power in the hands of the Roman proconsul. The tribe of Judah and the kingdom of Judea were all that had once remained of Israel's former greatness--and now even that had been crushed under the Roman heel.

In his book Jesus Before the Sanhedrin, Augustin Lemann records a statement by Rabbi Rachmon, one of the rabbis of that era, describing the reaction of the Jews to this Roman insult to Jewish sovereignty:

When the members of the Sanhedrin found themselves deprived of their right over life and death, a general consternation took possession of them: they covered their heads with ashes, and their bodies with sackcloth, exclaiming: "Woe unto us for the scepter has departed from Judah and the Messiah has not come."

Why did the Jews respond with such dismay and horror, putting on sackcloth and ashes? Because they believed that the prophecy of Genesis 49:10 had been voided by the Roman government. The scepter had departed from Judah and Messiah had not come--

Or so they thought!

For while the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem wept and bemoaned the loss of the scepter, a few miles away in Nazareth, a boy of about twelve was growing up, the living fulfillment of Jacob's ancient promise to Judah. Jesus of Nazareth, Shiloh, the long-awaited Messiah, had already come and was preparing to take what was his, the scepter of Judah!

This is very important: Once the scepter was removed from Judah, it was no longer possible for any Messiah to come at a later date. Today, any Jewish people who still wait for the Messiah are waiting in vain, for the prophecy of Genesis 40:10 is already fulfilled. No other Messiah can come once the scepter is removed.

What's more, the Temple of Jerusalem, the place where the genealogical records were kept, was destroyed by Titus and Vespasian in 70 A.D. I am informed that it is no longer possible for any Jewish person to prove himself to be a descendant of the tribe of Judah--a necessary condition for the Messiah. So Jesus was Shiloh, the Messiah. He is the one the Jewish people--and all of mankind--have awaited.

Now, what’s important here is how so many lines of evidence converge. First, there is the prophecy of Gen. 49:10, the first book in the Bible. Next, there is the tradition of the Jews, which for hundreds of years held that Shiloh is the Messiah. Next, there is the record of the Gospels, which indicate that Jesus was on the scene at that very moment in history. Plus there is the testimony of nonChristian historians which cross-reference and verify the story, details, chronology, and meaning of the story.

And I’ve just given you two of literally hundreds of instances where different parts of the Bible agree with each other in amazing and clearly supernatural ways. If God Himself was not the Author of these books, then there could not possibly be such astounding agreement among books by different writers composed over such vast stretches of time, and independently verified by nonChristian historians. Compare Isaiah 53 with the Gospels. Compare Psalm 22 with the Crucifixion accounts. Compare Gen. 3:15 with the entire sweep of the New Testament, from the Gospels through the triumph of Revelation. And there is so much more.

So you see, I’m NOT convinced of the validity of the Bible I read because it agrees with Protestant doctrine or with my own preconceptions. I am convinced because, again and again and again, IT AGREES WITH ITSELF in a way that defies coincidence or any natural explanation.

So when I say that my starting assumption is that the Bible is God’s Word, I am actually leaving out a lot of steps that I have previously taken in researching and ascertaining that this is a valid assumption. I have done my homework on this Book, and I’m convinced of its validity.

I won’t quibble over the Deutercanonical books. I have read them (a long time ago, actually, but I’ve read them). I think they are certainly valuable for historical interest. I choose not to base my beliefs on them because I think there is good reason to doubt their usefulness for that purpose. But if others, like Conor, wish to accept them as Scripture, I doubt that any great harm is done—and hey, Conor could be right. But I figure I’ve got my hands full with the 66 books I already have.

More to come (groan)...

--wiz



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 08, 2000).]

...plus I still owe Conor a reply...

--wiz

Kurgan--

We're not talking merely about differences of opinion or cultural differences, although I can see how you would put it that way. That is your belief. That, to me, is sort of like people like ZoomRabbit who say "all religions are basically the same, on the important points." But I think that is putting it a bit too simply.

I’m not sure if we were talking about the same thing. You asked which first century Christian church, as if there were many. And I’m not sure if you meant the different regional divisions of the first century church (Gaul, Rome, Asia Minor, Palestine, Africa) or if you meant different splinter groups, such as Gnostics, etc.

If you meant the former, then I think the differences were largely cultural. If you were referring to various sects, cults, and splinter groups, then of course there are major and fundamental differences. I would never say that all religions (or all systems claiming to be “Christian”) are basically the same. I just wasn’t clear (and still am not) what you meant by “there was much variety in the early Church.”

A Gnostic Christian, an Adoptionist, a Marcionite, a Monophysite, and a Docetist would say they have the true writings . . . . Many of their writings show Jesus and the Apostles saying the sorts of things that would mean that group's beliefs are correct.

All I know is that the Bible I try to live by demonstrates an internal and historical consistency that is nothing short of miraculous (see my previous long post). That is objective evidence for its validity. Now if some other group has a “Bible” that is different, but which stands up to that kind of objective verification, I sure haven’t heard about it.

You say:

As to my being a devil's advocate or not. I want to accept the NT as a starting point, that would make it much simpler of course, but I cannot honestly do this for myself. I do not see objective evidence enough to validate it as a true starting point of reliability.

What would be objective evidence for you? I know that the criteria would vary from person to person, and what I find convincing you might find unpersuasive. But do the kinds of evidence of internal consistency that I cited in the previous post carry weight in your thinking?

Perhaps, and this is not a slam of any kind, but you are so entrenched in your belief that the NT as we have it today is the perfect, infallible document of Christianity in the world, that you can't admit the possibility that it could be wrong. But I don't know that for sure, I am just throwing out ideas here.

I’m repeating myself, probably, but I want to be responsive to your questions. As previously stated, I went through a period of doubting and rational questioning of my faith—a very lengthy period, in fact, at least ten years. I made a point of reading the skeptics and rationalist challenges to my beliefs. I never considered myself an unbeliever or a thorough agnostic, but through much of that time I was almost as much an agnostic as a believer, and I think I’ve got a pretty good grasp of the agnostic and skeptical mindset. I think of myself as a good skeptic. So I think I subjected the Scriptures to some pretty strong tests for falsification, and they passed the tests to my satisfaction.

There are still a number of problem passages that I can’t explain. But a lot of parts of the Scripture that I used to consider errors and contradictions I now understand were misunderstandings on my part (and the part of many antibiblical skeptics). For example, the common misconception that there are two contradictory creation accounts in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

Do I know the Bible is the perfect and infallible source of Divinely Inspired revelation and the rest of the documents that claim those things for themselves (or are claimed by others) are not? I don't. If you can, tell me how I would know (other than higher sales figures of course).

As I previously stated (to the point of tedium, I’m sure), the best test I can think of is internal consistency of the entire span of Scripture. The Bible we have today is many books with one theme. If you go through it from Genesis to Revelation, it’s all about the fact that human beings are sinful and in need of redemption, that God is sending (future tense, Genesis to Malachi) or has sent (Matthew to Revelation) the promised Redeemer.

A pastor friend of mine related to me a conversation he had with a man who believed that the Bible was just an ancient collections of unrelated human writings, of historical and cultural interest and curiosity perhaps, but not the inspired Word of God. This pastor said to the man, “Well, let me read some Bible passages to you, and you tell me who these passages are talking about.” So he flipped through his Bible and read:

"Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of
my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me."

"Smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered."

"And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not,
forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD
said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was priced at of
them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the
house of the LORD."

"They shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek."

"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? ... All they that see me
laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, he
trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing
he delighted in him. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of
joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My
strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws. ...
For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me:
they pierced my hands and my feet. I may tell all my bones: they look and
stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my
vesture."

"They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me
vinegar to drink."

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did
esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for
our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our
peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep
have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD
hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was
afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the
slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his
mouth. ... And he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin
of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

(Sorry about the King James Version, btw--I usually use a modern translation, but I took these passages right out of the pastor's email to me, and that's the version he uses. The pastor actually read more verses than this, but I shortened the list.)

After reading all these passages to the man, the pastor asked, “Who are these verses talking about?”

"That's obvious," the man replied. "You were reading about Jesus. That was all about his life and his death on the cross.”

“Are you sure?” asked the pastor. “No doubt in your mind? Couldn’t those verses be about someone else?”

“Of course not. Those verses couldn’t refer to anyone else but Jesus. What’s your point?”

"Simply this," said the pastor. “Every one of the verses I just read to you was written hundreds of years before Jesus was born. They are all from the Old Testament. The latest book in the Old Testament was written 400 years before Christ. Not even the harshest skeptic would claim those verses were written after His birth, because the entire Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into Greek in Alexandria a century and a half before He was born. Now, if the Bible is merely a book written by men, would you please explain to me how those prophetic passages about Jesus came to be written hundreds of years before He was born?"

(Those passages, btw, are from Psalm 41:9, Zechariah 13:7, Zechariah 11:12-13, Micah 5:1, Psalm 22:1,7-8,14-18, Psalm 69:21, and Isaiah 53:4-7,12.)

I don’t know if you find that kind of evidence compelling or not, but at least I’m not citing sales figures. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

--wiz




[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 08, 2000).]

Sorry I haven't been around for a while. I really have lost my enthusiasm for this discussion (no offense to anybody, I just don't feel like doing it). I still like reading what people have to say though.

Here's something I read today (roughly, I'm not quoting):

A minister decided to play hooky on his Sunday service and let his assistant do it. He drove to a far away golf course so he wouldn't have a chance of bumping into any parishoners. St. Peter looked down and asked God, "Are you going to let him get a away with this?" God was silent. The minister hit the first ball and got a 383 yard hole-in-one.

St. Peter exclaimed, "Why did you let him do that?!" God responded, "Who is he going to tell?"

--------------------------------------------

As for this debate, I don't see it as dangerous or foolish or pointless. If I think others are mistaken about certain areas of reality (i.e. what Jesus wants us to do) then I would like to try to point out why and how. I am not going to get upset if they don't agree with me. The worst that can happen on both sides is that we learn, which I have. I have a better grasp of the Protestant mindset, which in many ways I haven't seen described as well before.

I don't think it hurts in the slightest...

------------------
"First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in."
-C.S. Lewis

If anyone is interested, one of the most grounded groups of Protestant Christians I know is als a JK Clan, Redeemed: http://www.expressedthoughts.com/redeemed/)
Check them out!
Also they have a sister site mainly involving theology: http://www.expressedthoughts.com/)
LSF_Brasidus
Protestant Christian, with strong Anabaptist afilliations theologically

LSF_Brasidus--

Welcome, and thanks for the info on www.expressedthoughts.com). (http://www.expressedthoughts.com.)

I'm familiar with the Anabaptist tradition, btw. My grandparents were Mennonites.

--wiz

Conor--

I understand your loss of enthusiasm for the subject (interestingly, the word “enthusiasm” comes from the Greek entheos, meaning to be filled or infused with God, so if you no longer feel enthused about something, it probably means that God is not leading you to pursue that thing any longer!).

I have gained a lot in the discussion, both from what you have posted and from the way your posts have made me do my homework on these issues, so I feel I’ve gotten quite an education as a result.

I don’t want to debate you on anything you presented. The stuff you present on Peter and Apostolic Authority makes a fine case if you are predisposed to accepting Church authority and tradition as infallible, but unconvincing from a Sola Scriptura position. Which means that we have ended up right where we started, which should surprise neither of us.

Catholic tradition and doctrine can be SUPPORTED from Scripture, but it cannot be PROVEN from Scripture. Every Scripture passage you cite that supports the perfection or infallibility or authority of the Church is certainly a valid support for your point, but also can be interpreted differently.

The Lord’s “rock” statement to Peter after his confession, for example, has several possible interpretations that I’m aware of. The Catholic Church says that Peter himself is the rock and that the keys of the kingdom symbolize church authority. But others argue (quite logically, it seems to me) that Peter is renamed “Rocky” (so to speak) because of the confession he has just made, and that the rock of Peter’s confession--the truth that Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God--is the foundational rock upon which the church is to be built, not the man Peter himself.

And what about the keys? In Matthew 16:19, Jesus tells Peter: “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." The Catholic church says this symbolizes the power and authority of the papacy. But look two chapters further, in Matthew 18:18, and you find Jesus saying to ALL the disciples (and thus, by extension, all believers): “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

When I compare what Jesus says about building His church upon the rock (whatever that rock may be), I have to compare it with other Scripture, such as 1 Cor. 3:11-12 and Eph. 2:20-21, which says that the only foundation for the church is Christ alone. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that the rock that Jesus was talking about was Peter’s confession of Christ as Messiah and Son of God, not any mere human being such as Peter. So it is Jesus, not Peter, who is the Rock, and Peter’s renaming is occasioned by the fact that Peter was the first human being to grasp and express the truth of Jesus’s true identity.

The "keys," then, symbolize our authority as believers to affect world events and even God’s eternal plan by proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is why all believers possess these keys, according to Matthew 18:18.

I understand and appreciate the Catholic position regarding Peter and the papacy, but I cannot accept it because (1) there is no clear, unambiguous evidence for the claim in Scripture (all Scripture you cited is of arguable interpretation or inferential in nature, not definitive), (2) there is Scriptural evidence which undermines the claim, and (3) the history of corruption in the church further undermines the claim. It is hard for me to imagine that if the position of Pope was so sacrosanct to God that He would have allowed it to be occupied so many times by such dismal occupants.

Scripture undermines the claim by the fact that Peter himself never claims to be pope. In fact, much to the contrary, he refers to himself as one elder among many (1 Peter 5:1) and repudiated any attempts to set up a powerful hierarchy over the church (1 Peter 5:3). He refused to receive the kind of homage that is now part of the traditional homage paid to a Pope (Acts 10:25-27). His authority in spiritual and doctrinal matters was clearly challenged by Paul (Gal. 2:11-14), who certainly didn’t see Peter as infallible. And there is no evidence apart from Catholic tradition that Peter ever presided over the church in Rome or even went to Rome. Interestingly, Paul’s epistle to the Romans greets many believers in Rome, but does not mention Peter (see Romans 16).

The point here is not to argue with you and make you or the RCC out to be wrong. It is simply to point out that the Protestant position has a strong and meritorious case based in Scripture.

If you start from the premise that Church authority is the equal of biblical authority, then your case makes sense. If you start from the premise that biblical authority is supreme, and the validity of Church doctrine and tradition must be proven from a biblical basis alone, your case becomes unconvincing. Add to this the profoundly corrupt history of the institutional church and I find it simply impossible to give credence to Church authority and tradition.

And these are the premises that divide us. It is a deep and wide chasm, and I can’t cross it without a much stronger biblical bridge than the one you have constructed. So we each have our premises, and we stand on them. And that’s okay, from my pov.

From my understanding of Scripture, I find many, many unambiguous statements that prevent me from accepting the authority of the RCC. I cannot accept a priesthood or a Pope interposed between myself and God as a mediator. I see the priesthood as a continuation of the Jewish sacrificial system that was abolished by Christ when He made the final full sacrifice that the Jewish sacrifices merely pointed toward. One of the things I’ve learned in this dialog we’ve had, that I never understood before, was that the celebration of the mass is actually an echo of the old Jewish sacrificial system. The Catholic priest, in effect, acts like an Old Testament priest, offering a blood sacrifice for sin, every time the Host is blessed and offered in the mass. That, I now see, is why the concept of the Real Presence is so important to Catholic thinking. If the blood sacrifice is not made for sins at each mass, there is no mediation, no fresh remission of sins.

From passages such as 1 Tim. 2:5, Mark 2:7, Romans 5:2, and Hebrews 4:16, it seems clear to me that all believers were intended to have direct and unmediated access to God through prayer. The sacrifice of Christ accomplished the full and complete forgiveness of all sin, once and for all (Hebrews 9:26; 10:10-14), with no need for any penance, purgatory, or absolution by a priesthood to add anything to the salvation and forgiveness that Christ accomplished on the cross. You can go through the entire New Testament, and you will not find a single reference to the office of priest in the church. There are many other offices, but not the office of priest. In fact, Peter himself specifically says that all Christians are priests in a metaphorical sense, in that we offer a sacrifice of holy living before God (see 1 Peter 2:5,9).

I could not in good conscience refer to a priest as “Father” or the pope as “Holy Father” because in my mind it is a direct violation of what Christ said in Matthew 23:9: “And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.”

I don’t say this to argue the point with you. I do not say this is wrong for you. I simply wanted to make it clear why I cannot accept your previous points for my own life, even though I do see how they support your belief system, given the premises upon which your belief system is based.

I should address a couple points you raised, just to make sure you know that I read them and weighed them—I didn’t ignore anything you said. For example:

The early Church has always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. … St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Polycarp (a disciple of St. John the Apostle), says that Christians must be united to the Church of Rome in order to maintain the Apostolic Tradition. He presents this teaching as something taken for granted. … In the first 200 years of Christianity, every Pope but one was martyred.

Historians outside of the church dispute a lot of Catholic history and tradition. I have no problem with Catholics accepting the Catholic version of early church history, but I personally find considerable reason to doubt the Catholic version. There is evidence that the church in Rome first asserted authority over the entire church near the end of the second century, and that those assertions of Rome’s primacy were repeatedly rejected by the church in Asia, Judea, and Africa. Apparently Pope Victor (Bishop of Rome, AD 189-198) claimed the right to dictate to the churches in Asia Minor, a claim the Asiatic bishops rejected, according to Eusebius and Tertullian.

As I understand it, Rome’s primacy was repeatedly rejected by the larger church until well into the 5th century. By that time, the Judean church had been persecuted nearly out of existence, the African church had been largely overrun and wiped out by the Vandals, and the Asian church was also in disarray. (All of this disarray was due to the collapsing Roman Empire.) Under Pope Leo I, Rome asserted its primacy over the ruins of the fallen Roman Empire, and there were no church leaders outside of Rome (with the except of the Greek church) with sufficient strength to resist. Secular historians claim that canons of earlier church councils were forged under Leo I; whether or not that is true (Catholic historians would certainly deny it), that would explain some discrepancies between Scripture and Catholic tradition, at least in my mind.

Under Pope Gregory I (590-604), the wealth and power and even slave-holding status of the church greatly expanded. Under Gregory VII, the Pope asserted power over kings (he excommunicated Henry IV of Germany), and attempted to establish the Pope as the absolute Monarch of the world. From the 5th century through the 16th century (the time of the Reformation), the focus of the RCC seemed to be the acquisition and exercise of temporal (earthly) power. I contrast this chain of events with Jesus’ statement that “My kingdom is not of this world,” and I have to question once more the validity and genuine spiritual authority of this institution, as it was then comprised.

You say, “In the first 200 years of Christianity, every Pope but one was martyred,” but secular historians indicate that while the title "martyr" was given to nearly every Pope in the first two centuries of the church, probably only two out of thirty were actually martyred. Most of the early popes appear to be obscure men of whom little is objectively known. Of later popes, particularly from AD 300 to 1650, what is known is all too often unsavory, but only to be expected of people who have aspired to and achieved a position of enormous political power, as the papacy then was. It seems clear to me, when I read what Jesus had to say about power, leadership vs. servanthood, and the seduction of religious evil, that the last thing He had in mind for His church was that it would become a sprawling, powerful political/religious institution. The very last thing. That was what He always fought and warned against, and that was what put Him on the cross. And the sordid history of the church from the fourth to the sixteenth centuries would seem to bear out that analysis.

To me, it is significant that the Church declared that its own tradition was of equal authority with Scripture at the Council of Trent, during the height of both church corruption and the dissension of the Reformation. I believe this is a sad mistake, for it runs counter to the rebuke that Jesus delivered to the Pharisees in Mark 7:8,13: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! … Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."

I see a lot of situations where it seems to me that the RCC traditions run at cross purposes with Scripture, so I must part with the tradition and cling to the Scripture. I don’t fault you or consider you in any serious error for believing as you do, but this is what, in all good conscience, I must do. That is the reason I remain unpersuaded by your arguments, but I have been greatly educated and enlightened by everything you have shared with me, and I really appreciate it.

All the best to you, my friend,
--wiz

Don't you find it all interesting that you do consider Peter in matters of faith and morals to be infallible along with the rest of the Apostles? (as you believe their writing in the Bible are infallible). http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif)

Anyway, there is a kerfuffle going on in the Jedi Power Battles forum and someone is demanding even a shred of concrete evidence that God exists. I thought you may like to try your hand. http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/biggrin.gif)

I got a new sig too.

------------------
"To believe anything at all is to believe it true. To believe something true is to believe that whatever is incompatible with it must be false. And to believe somebody else's belief false is implicitly intolerant. Therefore, if intolerance is an evil, belief itself-in anything-is an evil. So the only way we can get rid of intolerance is to prohibit belief. Which, of course, would be very intolerant indeed."
-Ted Byfield

Hi guys!
Thank you forthe welcome Wiz!

Just to clarify, my comment about the Anabaptists is more in regard to the original 16th century version, not that I have a problem with the modern Anabaptists mind you ;-) I in particular I hold an affinity for Balthazaar Hubmaier. Those unfamiliar with the topic I highly recommend “The Anabaptist Story An introduction to sixteenth century Anabaptism” by William R. Estep.
I think both Conor and Wizzywig would both find it a very enlightening read. And at least one of you would find it very enjoyable I believe.

I would dearly love to contribute to this discussion, but I fear that I really do not have the time to give proper replies and so I will give none. Suffice it to say that I am in accord with the majority of Wiz'z statements except for a few in regard to who is encompassed by the "church invisible."

If I might offer another text that I think is excellent "Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible" makes an excellent case using both the Word, and the writings of the Church Fathers to defend the doctrine of sola Scriptura. http://www.sdgbooks.com/sdgbooks/)
May the Lord bless and keep you all.
Brasidus

Aha! Mention Zoom Rabbit, and his ears appear...!

Howdy, folx! http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/biggrin.gif) Yes, Kurgan that does sum up my argument, and it really is that simple. God is everywhere, and every religion (except maybe the Church of Satan) is devoted to Him. The only differences are related to how we perceive Him.

http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

------------------
"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

Kurgan--

I just wanted to check in with you on the subjects we were talking about here. You had asked me my reasons for trusting the validity of the generally accepted Old and New Testaments. I had supplied a general principle (the supernatural self-consistency of the Bible, the fact that there is a degree of agreement between various parts and books of the OT and NT that defies mere coincidence), plus specific examples, such as Messianic OT prophecies that are fulfilled in Christ in a way that defies natural (that is, apart from God) explanation. In other words, for these prophecies and fulfillments to line up as they do is statistically impossible unless this Bible truly is God's revelation of Himself to the human race. That, I think, is a powerful objective verification, especially given the examples I cited.

I was wondering what you thought of that evidence and that line of reasoning.

On a different matter--

I just posted to Ikhnaton in another thread how much I appreciate the job of moderating you folks do. And I wanted to post it again to make sure that the comment reached you. I wrote:

I really have to hand it to you and Kurgan and whoever else moderates this place--this is a great forum, in large part because of the way it is moderated.

A month or so ago, I posted at a Star Trek forum I hadn't visited in a while, and was really disappointed. Everything was so rigidly controlled. Every thread you opened had to fit rigidly into the overall heading, or you had to post it in a "Misc." heading that nobody ever visited--unlike here, where there is freedom to talk about God in the Racer forum, etc.

The moderators at the Trek forum treated people like children. The least little bit of heatedness, and they would close and lock the thread. (They did that to two of my threads.) When I posted a message asking why it was moderated so tightly, the moderator said all questions to moderators had to be handled privately by email or ICQ--then she locked the thread! That was my last post in that forum.

Here, things may get a little heated from time to time, but rarely over the top, and people are grownup enough (and trusted enough) to handle it, resolve it, and move on without having the moderators swoop in and lock the thread.

My hat's off to you and Kurgan and the rest for making this a great place to meet, discuss, and even debate.

So your efforts and your wise handling of this forum, though unheralded, are much appreciated.

--wiz



------------------
"Christian:
One who believes that the New Testament
is a divinely inspired book admirably suited
to the spiritual needs of his neighbor."
--AMBROSE BIERCE

Well wiz, I pretty much expected a long, drawn out series of posts, and I got just that.

Have to hand it to you. ; )

Essentially what you have presented to me is a semi-comprehensive argument for the traditional (Protestant) Christian viewpoint. That about sums it up.

I think it was very good, thanks. ; )

I guess the only thing I could really say in response to that (if I were a Gnostic) would be that the only thing a modern Christian (Protestant, Catholic or Orthodox) is that the only reason that we (the Gnostics) are viewed as a "cult" or "splinter group" is because we were a persecuted minority at the time of Christ and since then.

Just becuase the majority of Christians back then and now didn't agree with us, doesn't mean we are wrong. How do you know we aren't the elect?

They would say that because they are the underdog, that only goes to show that they are God's elect.

Of course a Traditional Christian like yourself would say that the reason the Gnostics don't have a bigger foothold than the Orthodox groups of Christians is because it is God's will that most Christians follow the "true invisible brotherhood of believers" and that Gnostics, while in error, could still be saved by God's mercy if they live as good people.

And that's about how it goes.

Whenever I ask questions on here that may sound challenging or like I'm being a "devil's advocate," it's not because I'm trying to be mean or anything, I just want to know what everyone's viewpoints are, and what they would say to various arguments that would seem on the surface to undermine their viewpoint. This gives me a better understanding of each philosophical approach and helps me to better approach discussing these subjects with others and informing my own belief.

I'm glad people enjoy these forums. I do the best I can. But it would be for nothing without the cooperation of good people like yourselves. ; )

Kurgan

[This message has been edited by Kurgan (edited May 16, 2000).]

Kurgan--

I'm baffled by your reply. I think that somewhere in those lengthy posts of mine, a very simple point got buried or obscured, because you seem to be missing my point (unless I am missing yours). This has nothing to do with Protestantism or Catholicism whatsoever.

Your original question, as I understood it, was: "How do I know that the now-accepted Bible is valid?" Or, perhaps, "How do I know that the now-accepted Bible is the authentic Word of God?"

(Protestant, Catholic, doesn't matter. We are just talking about THE BIBLE, and I don't care if we mean the Catholic or Protestant canons, because the differences between the two are piddly, for all intents and purposes.)

My argument is that if the Bible is NOT the valid and authentic Word of God, it would be merely a collection of disparate, disjointed, discontinuous, unrelated books composed by many different human writers over thousands of years, written in an assortment of languages amid an assortment of cultures, without any common thread or theme to link those books together.

If, however, the Bible is the valid and authentic Word of God, it would (despite the many different human writers, cultures, languages, and long time frame) show an amazing unity, continuity, and homogeneity. You could prove its validity OBJECTIVELY by comparing (for example) O.T. prophecies with N.T. fulfillments. If all these different books seem to speak with one voice and tell one consistent story (which they do), then you would have to say that this is objectively validated as God's revelation of Himself to the human race.

That is my point in a nutshell. It probably was obscured by the fact that I used several lengthy examples as evidence to make the point.

In one example, I used a prophecy in the Hebrew Old Testament that was fulfilled by Christ in the four gospels of the Greek New Testament and verified by outside sources, such as Josephus. This was the prophecy about the sceptre not departing from Judah until Shiloh (the Messiah) comes.

I'm not sure you grasped the significance of that awesome prophecy and its fulfillment, and what a powerful validation that is of the Bible. (Note: this is not a validation of Protestantism, or of Sola Scriptura, but purely of the Bible itself). And that example is just one of HUNDREDS of such validations of Scripture.

Now, I'm not familiar with Gnostic belief or what Gnostics consider to be Scripture, but I would ask this:

Can Gnosticism be objectively verified? The Bible HAS been objectively verified.

You say:
Just becuase the majority of Christians back then and now didn't agree with us [Gnostics], doesn't mean we are wrong. How do you know we aren't the elect?

They would say that because they are the underdog, that only goes to show that they are God's elect.

Of course a Traditional Christian like yourself would say that ... Gnostics, while in error, could still be saved by God's mercy if they live as good people.

I'm baffled by all of the above. I don't view spiritual/biblical truth in terms of "the majority rules." I assess it in terms of objective validation. If Gnosticism could be validated as I have just objectively validated the Scriptures, then I would have to embrace it, even if that would make me the only Gnostic in the world. I believe in truth, not safety in numbers. But I am unaware of any such objective validation of Gnosticism.

As to your statement that I would say that Gnostics could be saved "if they live as good people," I wouldn't believe that for a moment. I have objectively validated the Bible as the Word of God, and the Word of God tells me that the only hope for any human being (Christian, Gnostic, Protestant, Catholic, Buddhist, Mormon, Hindu, or Reformed Cydonian) is faith in Jesus Christ.

I'm sorry if my past long posts have served to obscure rather than illuminate the point I'm making. But I hope this post makes the point clear: The Bible can be OBJECTIVELY VERIFIED AND VALIDATED. I think the evidence deserves a second look.

All the best--
WYSIWYG

------------------
"Christian:
One who believes that the New Testament
is a divinely inspired book admirably suited
to the spiritual needs of his neighbor."
--AMBROSE BIERCE

[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 17, 2000).]

Kurgan--

Let me compress this whole issue even further (since I'm sure you don't want to get drawn into a "long, drawn-out series of posts"). My single, simple question to you would be:

http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/icons/icon5.gif) Does the fact that the Bible contains many historically verified prophecies and fulfillments regarding Jesus as the Messiah serve to objectively validate the Bible as God Word (in your opinion)? [Y/N]

I will not even ask you to explain your answer. Feel free to simply answer yes or no. I am curious as to whether this sort of evidence cuts any ice with people.

Anyone else on this forum, feel free to chime in with opinions as well.

--wiz

<font size=1><font color = gray>



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 17, 2000).]

The problem is "historically verified". Wiz, you say OT prophecies are realized in the NT. But some can argue the NT was written AROUND the OT, crafting fiction around fact. Historical verification, as much as I hate to admit it, is basically the weakest form of proof. In fact, it proves nothing. It only gives reason to believe. Let me repeat your question:

Does the fact that the Bible contains many historically verified prophecies and fulfillments regarding Jesus as the Messiah serve to objectively validate the Bible as God Word (in your opinion)? [Y/N]

I admit it is a FACT that the Bible contains historically verified prophecies and ..., but this fact just tells us that the Bible as a whole tells a story that is consistent from cover to cover. Consistency is present in fiction as well, so this isn't much to go by. But you also make the claim that the Bible has a strong historical foundation, and is consistent with OTHER historical documents. Again, I say when all we have to go by is written history, especially this dated, objective validity is lost. You have to admit there exists a circumstance in which the Bible is historically inaccurate. Even though I feel historical documentation is the weakest form of verification, it can still give reason to believe. So my answer to your question would be no. It subjectively validates the Bible, however, because we all make a choice on whether to believe the history or not.

------------------
And there he is. The reigning champion of the Boonta Classic, and the crowd favorite-TheAhnFahn

[This message has been edited by theahnfahn (edited May 17, 2000).]

So, TAF, it would seem you're saying that an objective argument alone can't validate the Bible, and at some point a subjective call must be made.

I agree with you. Scary, huh? http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/wink.gif)

TheAhnFahn:

You have to admit there exists a circumstance in which the Bible is historically inaccurate.

It sounds as if you have a specific instance in mind. I'd be interested in knowing specifically what you are referring to.

Btw, did you read my entire post on the previous page of this thread regarding the "scepter shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes" prophecy in Genesis? That prophecy is validated in so many ways by both N.T. documents and extrabiblical historians that I think it must be considered OBJECTIVE, not subjective, evidence.

I'd be interested if you would read that post carefully and give me your opinion (unless you already have read it and you have already rendered your opinion). It's a long post, but I think the implications are mind-blowing, and are verified six ways from Sunday.

One last thing: While doing research on a different matter, I came across a website that talks about performing a statistical (odds) analysis of biblical prophecies about Jesus the Messiah. I don't know anything about the site and don't endorse it, but this page makes an interesting case similar to what we've been discussing: http://www.channel1.com/mpr/Articles/53-prob.html) .

--wiz


-----------------

Nowhere does Jesus demand of his hearers
that they shall sacrifice thinking to believing.
--ALBERT SCHWEITZER

<font size = 1><font color = gray>



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 17, 2000).]

I've worked 22 hours in the last two days (I complain too much). If I did read it my brain has been washed clean of all knowledge. I'll give it a looksee tonight.

TheAhnFahn--

You don't complain too much, you work too hard! You oughta tell your boss that Lincoln freed the slaves back in 1863.

--wiz

No offense intended Wiz.

What was my reaction supposed to be?

I understand your conviction and wish to validate your opinion, and I think you've done a good job of explaining it.

All I'm saying is that your belief, in a nutshell, is what is called the "Traditional Christian" viewpoint. That's just a simplistic way of classifying your philosopies for my own personal recollection.

I don't mean to try to downplay any of the things you have said.

As to the Gnostic arguments, I'd have to ask a Gnostic. I am in the process of studying them, and have only a few bits to throw out, which I have done already.

I'm sure they have plenty of counter-arguments. They obviously didn't spend two thousand years putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "nanananannana!" (or maybe they did... we'll find out!).

I was never arguing that the bible was NOT objectively verifiable or that the early Christian Church was not mostly proto-orthodox (in other words, the "Church of today" is "essentially" the "mere Christianity" of the early Church.. the majority of the early Church). All I was doing was REPORTING, what other groups would say in RESPONSE to your statements.

Obviously, the "evidence" is not perfectly clear to everyone, or else they would agree with you and hold the exact same premise that you hold, would they not? (barring "cultural" or other differences that you consider insignificant in regard to the "larger picture" and etc).

No disrespect at all. Remember, I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are.

Kurgan

Okay, I think I see the problem. When I said "live as good people" I should have said "live as Christ commanded."

Question for you, before I write my response to your question.

If a person lives as Jesus commanded, are they saved? (even if they do not know who Jesus is, or are not baptised into a Christian Church)

Since you reject ritual however, I think that "living as Christ commanded" would probably have a slightly different meaning to someone like me than to someone like you, and that's fine, we established that already.

But, in your opinion, and you seem to be saying something like that ("faith in Jesus Christ is what saves" along those lines).

Does a person have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins to be saved? Or can they merely live as the steward and brother of his neighbor that Jesus commanded him to be?

If I'm an atheist, but I live as a person who does all the kinds of things Jesus told people to do, would I be saved (even though I rejected the Bible and the churches and all that)?

Kurgan

Kurgan--

No offense intended Wiz.
None taken. I wasn't offended. I was frankly and candidly baffled, as I said, because your reply didn't seem to respond to my post. So I thought that either you had missed something or I had.

I understand your conviction and wish to validate your opinion, and I think you've done a good job of explaining it.

All I'm saying is that your belief, in a nutshell, is what is called the "Traditional Christian" viewpoint. That's just a simplistic way of classifying your philosopies for my own personal recollection.

What baffles me particularly is that you don't seem to respond to the specific evidence I presented. You seem to write it off as my "conviction" and my "opinion."

As to trying to "classify" my philosophies as "Traditional Christian," I am reminded of the time I went to the hospital in 1974. When I was admitted, a nurse asked me my religion for the chart. I answered, "Christian." She said, "Catholic or Protestant?" I said, "Just Christian." She wrote down "Protestant."

I guess people have to put you in a box, whether the box fits or not. Otherwise, people don't know where to stack you. I've been trying to shed the box and deal purely with the evidence.

You say:
I don't mean to try to downplay any of the things you have said.

I guess my frustration (not an angry frustration, but a disappointed one) is that I don't see you dealing with my evidence. I just see you dismissing it as my opinion. But I didn't make this stuff up. It's not subjective. It tests out. If I'm wrong in that appraisal, I wish somebody'd point out where I'm wrong, because I think this is startling stuff.

As to the Gnostic arguments, I'd have to ask a Gnostic. ... I'm sure they have plenty of counter-arguments. They obviously didn't spend two thousand years putting their fingers in their ears and yelling "nanananannana!" (or maybe they did... we'll find out!).

Most religions are subjective at base. Christianity is the only one I've seen that tests out objectively. My presumption is that Gnosticism has a subjective basis, too. If I'm wrong about that, I'd love to see the evidence.

Obviously, the "evidence" is not perfectly clear to everyone, or else they would agree with you and hold the exact same premise that you hold, would they not?

No. For example, the "scepter of Judah" evidence I cited in a previous post, which I think is mind-blowing, is something I only became aware of a few weeks ago. I had never heard it before.

I think most of the evidence I've been discussing in recent posts is evidence 9 out of 10 Christians (and 99,999 out of 100,000 nonChristians) have never heard before. I don't think people have looked into this evidence and disagreed. They have simply never heard any of it before.

No disrespect at all. Remember, I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are.

Of course you are. I'm not sure what that refers to. If I said something that indicates I'm trying to bully you into changing your opinion or something, I apologize. I just wanted to find out what you think about the specific evidence I posted, and I still don't know the answer to that. If you do not wish to answer that, no problem. Or if you think you did answer that by attributing it to my opinions, okay, that's your answer.

Question for you, before I write my response to your question.

If a person lives as Jesus commanded, are they saved? (even if they do not know who Jesus is, or are not baptised into a Christian Church)? ... Does a person have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God who died for our sins to be saved? Or can they merely live as the steward and brother of his neighbor that Jesus commanded him to be?

If I'm an atheist, but I live as a person who does all the kinds of things Jesus told people to do, would I be saved (even though I rejected the Bible and the churches and all that)?

My best answer to those questions is in two parts:
1. As B.J. once said on M*A*S*H, "I'm not the Acme Judgment Company." I leave the question of who is saved and who is not to God.
2. Jesus did say, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me." When you look at that in context, it still means what it seems to mean. So I think the safest thing is for people to commit their lives to Jesus Christ. Still, God is merciful, and he holds us accountable for the "light" we have received. So those who don't believe because they haven't heard much or anything about Christ will be dealt with according to God's mercy. What that means in the final analysis is beyond my ability to judge. I plead ignorance of God's mind on such matters.

I'm not trying to weasel out of answering. I'm simply giving the best answer I can muster.

--wiz





------------------
"Nowhere does Jesus demand of his hearers
that they shall sacrifice thinking to believing."
--ALBERT SCHWEITZER

Kurgan--

I've been giving some additional thought to your question:
If I'm an atheist, but I live as a person who does all the kinds of things Jesus told people to do, would I be saved (even though I rejected the Bible and the churches and all that)?

It just hit me that the question is based on a false premise--that a person can be an atheist and still do all the things Jesus told people to do. Because the most central thing Jesus told people to do was believe, and that is the one thing the atheist either cannot or will not do. Here are Jesus' own clear commands to believe:

Mark 1:15 "The time has come, the kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

Mark 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

John 3:16-18 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son."

John 6:29 "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."

John 8:24 "I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins."

There's nothing I need to add to that. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

--wiz



------------------
"Nowhere does Jesus demand of his hearers
that they shall sacrifice thinking to believing."
--ALBERT SCHWEITZER

I have heard people say "Well, if you don't believe in Jesus then you will not be saved." An atheist response is usually "So babies are not saved." Then, to qualify their statement, the Christian would say "I find it hard to believe that in the infinite mercy of God innocent little babies who are incapable of understanding the concept of Christ are not saved."

Now, I must admit this baffles me. In the infinite mercy of God, I would have the belief that those who have never been introduced the concept of Christ, who have never been introduced adequate proof of Christ, or who live life, love life, and love others, yet fail to be persuaded by 2000 year old documentaries of the life of one man, are not saved. Who here could honestly come to the conclusion that there is a God, a soul, and an eternal life in heaven without reading the teachings of Jesus? I can understand how one can flat out reject God's mercy, and therefore is not subject to it, but how is an ignorant baby any different than an ignorant adult?

[This message has been edited by theahnfahn (edited May 19, 2000).]

My answer would be none. As far as I'm concerned there is no difference between an ignorant man and an ignorant baby. I'm certain God wouldn't punish either of them for not knowing the truth.

However, we can safely say that all babies that die have not been able to reject God, therefore their destiny is assured. We can make no such predictions about adults. A third party cannot tell whether a person is ignorant or has knowingly rejected God in favor of himself. So if someone asks me if any baby went to heaven, I will say yes. If someone asks me whether an atheist went to heaven, I will say I don't know. We could guess, but I don't see the point.

There is also willful ignorance. I don't think God is very happy about people who are deliberately ignorant. What He does about them, I couldn't say.

------------------
"To believe anything at all is to believe it true. To believe something true is to believe that whatever is incompatible with it must be false. And to believe somebody else's belief false is implicitly intolerant. Therefore, if intolerance is an evil, belief itself-in anything-is an evil. So the only way we can get rid of intolerance is to prohibit belief. Which, of course, would be very intolerant indeed."
-Ted Byfield

wizzywig: Good answer!

Kurgan

Thanks, Kurgan.

Conor and TheAhnFahn, ultimately it has to come down to a matter of humility and trust. Questions of who gets saved under certain special circumstances are beyond my capacity, but in all humility, I know I can trust the awesome God of the Bible, the awesome God of the Anthropic Principle, to do what is right and just and fair toward every human soul. And I have to leave it at that, while doing everything I can to let people know the truth of Jesus Christ.

--wiz

For Wiz (cross thread conversations are fun) and as an answer to Kurgan's original question.

I would consider myself a weak atheist, i.e. I am highly skeptical about the existance of deities but I don't KNOW that gods don't exist.

The thing that occured to me whilst chatting to wiz in the JPB thread was that I don't care whether or not the universe was created by the jewish/christian/islamic god, sneezed into existence by the great green arckle-seizure or just happended by pure chance. I also don't care if any of the available things I could "worship" exist. None of it has any effect on me at all. I can live quite happily without religion. To acheive that happiness though I do have to live follow my own moral code. I don't care what religion anyone else decides to follow. I do care how people act. We all do though, we all judge others by our own values it can't be helped.

I think I'll regret this post wiz becuase I expect that it could easily be greeted with a round of "If you don't love jesus you'll be damned etc.", but it might not happen, hell I've been wrong before.

chewie's hairbrush--

Ah, now I understand! http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/icons/icon12.gif)

Hey, "weak atheist" is good! That means you have an opinion but you are open to new information. (I wonder--what would be the difference between a "weak atheist" and a "strong agnostic"?)

The thing that occured to me whilst chatting to wiz in the JPB thread was that I don't care whether or not the universe was created by the jewish/christian/islamic god, sneezed into existence by the great green arckle-seizure or just happended by pure chance.

C. S. Lewis once wrote something along the lines of (and I wish I had written down the quote, because I've searched for it since and can't find it, so this is not the exact wording), "If you have separated yourself from the God of the universe, how could you do anything but die? And if you have joined yourself to the God of the universe, how could you do anything but live forever?"

I'm not talking here about "pie in the sky, bye and bye when you die." I'm talking about having eternal life (which entails living a life of profound meaning) in the here and now. This is not to denigrate the life you are currently living, chewie's hairbrush. You may be enjoying yourself quite nicely and living quite morally and productively. I have no quarrel with you there.

But I look at the Anthropic evidence for God, and I see a God who is intelligent, purposeful, powerful, eternal--and above all, a God who wants to be known. This God does not hide. The evidence is profound and mind-shatteringly obvious. When Psalm 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands," hey, the Psalmist isn't kidding!

I see all the evidence, and I think, "Incredible! And this God also seeks an intimate connection with my life." And it's obvious that God does seek that kind of connection. What is the Anthropic evidence all about? It's about a God who deliberately and quite intentionally created a fine-tuned universe and a delicately balanced Sun-Earth-Moon system for the express purpose of bringing intelligent life into existence. Why? Because this God seeks a connection to and fellowship with lifeforms like us.

I absolutely want to align myself with the purposes of such a God. I absolutely want to be intimately and eternally connected to the Soul who created the universe. And it baffles me that anyone would simply shrug off such a God.

I won't argue with your statement, "I can live quite happily without religion." I haven't much use for "religion" (meaning religious rituals and rules) myself. But I would not see myself as living a meaningful life apart from a living, daily connection to the Cosmic Designer.

I won't lay the "If you don't love jesus you'll be damned" thing on you. In fact, I wish you well and I enjoy dialoging with you. And I wish for you what I wish for everyone--that the reality of the God of the universe would become as real to you as it is to me.

--wiz


------------------
"The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more
evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming."
--FREEMAN DYSON

<font color=gray><font size=1>



[This message has been edited by wizzywig (edited May 26, 2000).]

I'm a Roman Catholic, but basicly because my parents were. Like CHEWIE'S HAIRBRUSH I am also a "weak atheist."

I agree with Wiz...'weak atheists' are just fine. I think the wisest words I ever hear anyone say are 'I don't know.'

It's the people who absolutely deny that there can be a God who scare me. They are essentially saying they they are the highest beings in existance, and that would mean we were all in a lot of trouble.

Someone who simply doesn't know for sure one way or the other has taken the first step to finding the truth. It then becomes a matter of making up one's mind.

I would emphasize, though, that you don't have to go to church or choose a particular religion even to avoid being an atheist. I, myself have absolute rock solid faith in God, but don't participate in secular religious activities (aside from attending meditation groups, which are organized on the Hindu faith) because my connection with God takes place within. Now, I'm not implying that the mystic way is superior to the religious (both lead to God http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/smile.gif), just that I've often found that some people consider themselves atheists because they don't go to church, not because they don't believe in God...when actually, they are mystics. Just a clarification in terms, here...

http://www.jediknight.net/mboard/biggrin.gif)

------------------
"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."