Is the Bible the only sacred texts and why or why not.

[JudgeRightly]

* You're confirming what I accused you of---it's not in the Bible, so it didn't happen. Typical Protestant.
Again, you're tied to what is written, and to what is written only. You've no room for what the Apostles actually uttered with their own mouths, nor to those men who succeeded the Apostles; the bishops, the college of whom are still around today, and who have judiciously revealed what the Apostles did actually utter with their own mouths. Among which, that Paul is certainly an Apostle, and the Twelfth one at that.

Freeloader is anything but a protestant.

He's one of those "new age" types.

 

[Idolater]

Freeloader is anything but a protestant.

He's one of those "new age" types.

The 'protest' in 'Protestant' is protest against the Holy See, and the notion that someone can dream up an idea about the Christian faith, that is distinct from what the Apostles' successors universally teach in communion with Rome, and have it have any validity or even respect, is fundamentally Protestant---that's all I meant.

 

[freelight]

Research before just assuming........

Research before just assuming........

* You're confirming what I accused you of---it's not in the Bible, so it didn't happen. Typical Protestant.

Wrong, reread my response. As an eclectic theosophist im far from being a 'typical protestant' let alone a traditional 'christian'. I'd get to know my theology, plenty of info in my profile, signature links, blog and threads/posts here to become familiar before making assumptions.

Again, you're tied to what is written, and to what is written only.

Wrong again.

You've no room for what the Apostles actually uttered with their own mouths, nor to those men who succeeded the Apostles; the bishops, the college of whom are still around today, and who have judiciously revealed what the Apostles did actually utter with their own mouths. Among which, that Paul is certainly an Apostle, and the Twelfth one at that.

You have no idea or proof of what the apostles 'actually uttered' with their mouths which were not recorded anywhere, so can only assume, hypothesize or speculate what they spoke. The doctrine of 'apostolic succession' is equally a 'belief' supposition to give existing priesthoods or clergy a link to or credibility as successors in a given lineage.

A seperate study on whether Paul was a true apostle of Jesus or a subverter of Jesus gospel and innovator of his own gospel is believed by some, with some convincing proofs, granted one accept the given criteria to establish such. The gentile pagan-friendly gospel of Paul won out as the Jewish-base apostles and community in Jerusalem dissipated, so that a more liberal roman eclectic religious syncretism formed its own entity as roman catholicism, a patchwork organization with papal authority and priesthood power implements engaged to govern and lord over the people in a 'church-state' theocracy. The rest is history, and the victors partly rewrote history to their own benefit.

I say again as earlier in this thread and elsewhere, the Bible has some good and valuable content, as well as not so good. This goes for the scriptures of many other religious traditions too. You cant put 'God' in a box, neither can one container hold the allness of God, who fills all in all.

 

[popsthebuilder]

So to you GOD who is responsible for all existence only chose a small portion of mankind to partake of HIS Mercy and destined all others to eternal torture?

Sounds quite benevolent.

Is your GOD all knowing?

Saying it doesn't make it so.

The Bible says that the JEWS (not the Ishmaelites) were entrusted with the recording of scripture.

Muhammad (last I checked, which was just now) is a descendant of Ishmael. Therefore nothing he wrote is considered "oracles of God."

Speaking of the advantage of the Jews:
Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. - Romans 3:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:2&version=NKJV



Nope. Paul would disagree.

Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God. - Romans 3:2 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans3:2&version=NKJV



:noid:

The Quran was authored by a delusional man over the course of his life, because he wanted to start a religion.

The Bible was composed by God and written by men inspired by Him, not in the course of one lifetime, but in the course of about 1500 years, and still maintains a coherent story, and not only that, but there's a flavor of realism that NO OTHER religious text or historical account has about the people who wrote it. If a dominant king writes about his nation in a historical document, he usually expresses only the good things about his nation, leaving out the parts he deems detrimental to his story. Muhammad was no different.

The Bible, on the other hand, shows the Jews as an UTTER FAILURE throughout their long history. Time and time again it shows them turning away from their God, and then being conquered by an enemy nation because God removed His hand from them, and they even killed their long-promised Messiah, and then they killed Stephen and were cut off from their promise because of their unbelief.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

So to you GOD who is responsible for all existence only chose a small portion of mankind to partake of HIS Mercy and destined all others to eternal torture?

Sounds quite benevolent.

Is your GOD all knowing?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

It sounds like you're accusing me of being a Calvinist, or at least someone who believes in a few of Calvin's teachings...

There's just one teensy weensy problem with that...

I'm an open theist.

God is free, and He gave man the freedom to choose between being with Him and being separated from Him.

Not sure what that has to do with the Quran contradicting itself and the Bible though.....

Oh, and mocking the God of the Bible (who is not the god of the quran) isn't going to bode well for you come Judgment Day.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Don't speak to me if you never intend to answer anything I ever ask.

We will see who is mocking GOD won't we? Thanks for proving my points

It sounds like you're accusing me of being a Calvinist, or at least someone who believes in a few of Calvin's teachings...

There's just one teensy weensy problem with that...

I'm an open theist.

God is free, and He gave man the freedom to choose between being with Him and being separated from Him.

Not sure what that has to do with the Quran contradicting itself and the Bible though.....

Oh, and mocking the God of the Bible (who is not the god of the quran) isn't going to bode well for you come Judgment Day.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

It sounds like you're accusing me of being a Calvinist, or at least someone who believes in a few of Calvin's teachings...

There's just one teensy weensy problem with that...

I'm an open theist.

God is free, and He gave man the freedom to choose between being with Him and being separated from Him.

Not sure what that has to do with the Quran contradicting itself and the Bible though.....

Oh, and mocking the God of the Bible (who is not the god of the quran) isn't going to bode well for you come Judgment Day.

When is asking questions based on your statements accusing you of anything? It cannot be, as an accusation isn't a question, but an assertion; like you saying i mock GOD.(there is only one, you know)

By the way; go study up on who the essenes were and their lineage if you choose to be so obtuse as to be concerned with such.

I wish you the best in your sincere studies.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[Idolater]

Wrong, reread my response. As an eclectic theosophist im far from being a 'typical protestant' let alone a traditional 'christian'. I'd get to know my theology, plenty of info in my profile, signature links, blog and threads/posts here to become familiar before making assumptions.

'Typical Protestant.' Christians who think they can with impunity disregard their pastor are called Protestants, and what you're arguing is Protestant in nature. In matters of faith and morals, if it is contrary to Rome, but a self-identifying 'Christian,' of any variety, is arguing it, then it is Protestant.

Wrong again.

I'm not trying to win the game you're keeping score on.

You have no idea or proof of what the apostles 'actually uttered' with their mouths which were not recorded anywhere

Nobody knew what they said, but did not write---except for the bishops.

, so can only assume, hypothesize or speculate what they spoke.

Or just believe that the bishops today are the same as the bishops in the Bible, who were all consecrated through the imposition of hands---first by the Apostles' own hands, who then instructed these bishops to consecrate new bishops, and the sacrament hasn't ceased to this day.

The doctrine of 'apostolic succession' is equally a 'belief' supposition to give existing priesthoods or clergy a link to or credibility as successors in a given lineage.

It's a double-doctorate from the best university in the world, is the shepherding pedigree for Catholic bishops. No one else has that, only Catholic bishops.

A seperate study on whether Paul was a true apostle of Jesus or a subverter of Jesus gospel and innovator of his own gospel is believed by some, with some convincing proofs, granted one accept the given criteria to establish such. The gentile pagan-friendly gospel of Paul won out as the Jewish-base apostles and community in Jerusalem dissipated, so that a more liberal roman eclectic religious syncretism formed its own entity as roman catholicism, a patchwork organization with papal authority and priesthood power implements engaged to govern and lord over the people in a 'church-state' theocracy. The rest is history, and the victors partly rewrote history to their own benefit.

The Gospel is that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. Paul's teaching most dramatically impacted the Church in her liturgy, much of it shaped by him, and clearly so. Catholic Mass does what Paul says.

Paul doesn't dominate Catholic theology like in Protestant theology. Like I said, Paul's biggest influence upon the Church, is what she does in church, as a Church; together; liturgy; Mass. It is Protestants who've put Paul's theological treatments on a mantle and interpret everything else through their personal opinion of Paul's systematic theology. If you're looking for theology of Christian traditions heavily influenced by Paul, start your search in 1517 and work forward from there, because the Church before the Reformation, didn't overemphasize Paul in verbally expressing the Christian faith. That was Luther who did that, and Calvin. Protestants.

I say again as earlier in this thread and elsewhere, the Bible has some good and valuable content, as well as not so good. This goes for the scriptures of many other religious traditions too. You cant put 'God' in a box, neither can one container hold the allness of God, who fills all in all.

Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, and He is the only One Who is risen from the dead, and for Whom many people died exclusively for witnessing to Him being risen. 'Witness' = 'Martyr' in the Greek. Witnessing to Him being risen = Preaching the Gospel.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

There are plenty of 'sacred' texts from the Bible to the Vedas, Torah, Mishnah and Quran. As a Christian i believe the Bible to be the only legitimate sacred text inspired by God himself.

2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired of God."

 

[freelight]

creative dialogue, mutual respects......

creative dialogue, mutual respects......

'Typical Protestant.' Christians who think they can with impunity disregard their pastor are called Protestants, and what you're arguing is Protestant in nature. In matters of faith and morals, if it is contrary to Rome, but a self-identifying 'Christian,' of any variety, is arguing it, then it is Protestant.

Thats fine as a 'general definition',...yes,...I'm a liberal progressive fun loving gnostic heretic who does NOT submit at this time to the holy see, the creeds or dogmas of the RCC, but I do respect some aspects of the religious mythology, archetypes and traditions,....that have some meaning or value interpreted esoterically, since I'm a true universalist of sorts without being a 'christianized' one, or limited to that particular cult. 'Christ' represents the divinity in all men...the 'light'(logos) that illumines all souls born into matter.

I'm not trying to win the game you're keeping score on.

I didnt imply you were, just sharing an observation from my perspective

Nobody knew what they said, but did not write---except for the bishops.

I dont know what 'bishops' you could trust, since there isnt much of a historical record beyond the canonical gospels that has solid historical support beyond maybe fabricated lists. You'd have to provide some solid evidence for an unbroken apostolic succession in the first 3 centuries continuing to the present RCC church. The first 2-3 centuries appear pretty sparse to establish an unbroken chain. You are free to share the evidence.

Or just believe that the bishops today are the same as the bishops in the Bible, who were all consecrated through the imposition of hands---first by the Apostles' own hands, who then instructed these bishops to consecrate new bishops, and the sacrament hasn't ceased to this day.

Thats catholic tradition and belief, which must be held to give the religion credence.

It's a double-doctorate from the best university in the world, is the shepherding pedigree for Catholic bishops. No one else has that, only Catholic bishops.

Would have to research that, but much can be creatively supplied by tradition and maybe forged writings? Forgery was common in the first few centuries, so alot appears up for grabs for religious innovation/invention.

The Gospel is that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead. Paul's teaching most dramatically impacted the Church in her liturgy, much of it shaped by him, and clearly so. Catholic Mass does what Paul says.

I get that, since the Eucharist originated with him as a mystery-religion rite (probably then interpolated into the gospels), whereby by spiritual communion with the god-man, some sharing of divinity or nourishment is achieved by taking in his elements. The resurrection of Jesus can be taken figuratively as well, even if an actual historical event did not take place, if it was just a myth, and the placebo effect would work just as well (?).

Paul doesn't dominate Catholic theology like in Protestant theology. Like I said, Paul's biggest influence upon the Church, is what she does in church, as a Church; together; liturgy; Mass. It is Protestants who've put Paul's theological treatments on a mantle and interpret everything else through their personal opinion of Paul's systematic theology. If you're looking for theology of Christian traditions heavily influenced by Paul, start your search in 1517 and work forward from there, because the Church before the Reformation, didn't overemphasize Paul in verbally expressing the Christian faith. That was Luther who did that, and Calvin. Protestants.

I get that.

Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, and He is the only One Who is risen from the dead, and for Whom many people died exclusively for witnessing to Him being risen. 'Witness' = 'Martyr' in the Greek. Witnessing to Him being risen = Preaching the Gospel.

Thats the story/ticket line anyways. I take it more figuratively, the esoteric meaning or value in the story, the process of transformation of the Christ in man, which is what I think its all about anyways, as far as what 'religious experience' can be had within this system.

Therefore I'm sure some can find deep religious fulfillment in more organized church traditions, catholic, orthodox, etc. I also think some find their path in more liberal, eclectic, progressive pathways such as myself. I do find some elements (but not all) in the RCC and Orthodox tradtions of interest/appeal, - there is also a Liberal Catholic Church, which holds the basic christian sacraments with a more liberal theosophical world-view, allowing total intellectual freedom of thought. (more up my alley).

While I'm skeptical (or seem critical) on some matters, I'm generally open, tolerant and respectful as a researcher, philosopher and student of religious studies. I can only share from my current perspective, and I recognize that others are sharing their viewpoints, opinions, beliefs at any given time. I therefore naturally find many different religious texts of interest and potential value, not just the Bible.

 

[popsthebuilder]

There are plenty of 'sacred' texts from the Bible to the Vedas, Torah, Mishnah and Quran. As a Christian i believe the Bible to be the only legitimate sacred text inspired by God himself.

Have you read any of the others?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Have you read any of the others?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Pops, the Bible teaches that if Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is false.

But the reverse is also true: If Christ did rise from the dead, ALL OTHER RELIGIONS (including Islam) are false.

Because Christ did in fact rise from the dead, then Christianity is true, and we don't have to read other "sacred texts" (and I use that term loosely) to know that they are false, because Christ affirmed what was taught in the Old Testament, which teaches that Israel is God's chosen people, and that Christ was the one the prophecies spoke of, that He was the coming Messiah who would establish His Kingdom on Earth.

The story told by the Bible is exclusive of any other religion. Christ said that He would return shortly to establish His Kingdom, but only if Israel would repent. They didn't repent, so He cut them off (temporarily, until the fullness of the Gentiles is reached) and grafted in the Body of Christ.

Throughout the Bible, we are warned against adding to and removing from the Bible, as adding to or removing from God's word is a sin. Trying to add, say, the Quran to the Bible (even to say that it says the same thing, because it doesn't) violates that principle. It's a perversion of the Bible.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Have you read any of the others?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

“If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him.But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst.“If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers,of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth,you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him;but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. - Deuteronomy 13:1-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy13:1-10&version=NKJV

 

[popsthebuilder]

That is your biased opinion.

Pops, the Bible teaches that if Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is false.

But the reverse is also true: If Christ did rise from the dead, ALL OTHER RELIGIONS (including Islam) are false.

Because Christ did in fact rise from the dead, then Christianity is true, and we don't have to read other "sacred texts" (and I use that term loosely) to know that they are false, because Christ affirmed what was taught in the Old Testament, which teaches that Israel is God's chosen people, and that Christ was the one the prophecies spoke of, that He was the coming Messiah who would establish His Kingdom on Earth.

The story told by the Bible is exclusive of any other religion. Christ said that He would return shortly to establish His Kingdom, but only if Israel would repent. They didn't repent, so He cut them off (temporarily, until the fullness of the Gentiles is reached) and grafted in the Body of Christ.

Throughout the Bible, we are warned against adding to and removing from the Bible, as adding to or removing from God's word is a sin. Trying to add, say, the Quran to the Bible (even to say that it says the same thing, because it doesn't) violates that principle. It's a perversion of the Bible.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

“If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder,and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him.But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst.“If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers,of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth,you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him;but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people.And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. - Deuteronomy 13:1-10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy13:1-10&version=NKJV

Pretty sure St. Paul's entire testimony is based on visions and dreams.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Pops, the Bible teaches that if Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is false.

But the reverse is also true: If Christ did rise from the dead, ALL OTHER RELIGIONS (including Islam) are false.

Because Christ did in fact rise from the dead, then Christianity is true, and we don't have to read other "sacred texts" (and I use that term loosely) to know that they are false, because Christ affirmed what was taught in the Old Testament, which teaches that Israel is God's chosen people, and that Christ was the one the prophecies spoke of, that He was the coming Messiah who would establish His Kingdom on Earth.

The story told by the Bible is exclusive of any other religion. Christ said that He would return shortly to establish His Kingdom, but only if Israel would repent. They didn't repent, so He cut them off (temporarily, until the fullness of the Gentiles is reached) and grafted in the Body of Christ.

Throughout the Bible, we are warned against adding to and removing from the Bible, as adding to or removing from God's word is a sin. Trying to add, say, the Quran to the Bible (even to say that it says the same thing, because it doesn't) violates that principle. It's a perversion of the Bible.

That is your biased opinion.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Which part, specifically? Because there's a lot in my post you could be referring to...

 

[JudgeRightly]

Pretty sure St. Paul's entire testimony is based on visions and dreams.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Then you've apparently not read his Epistles...

But what does that have to do with the passage I quoted from Deuteronomy?

 

[Zeke]

In Romans seven Paul reveals the death being spoken of, and being raised/awakened from, the dead letter of the law that killeth is the same death that caused the spirit of the law to say let the dead bury the dead, Ephesians 5:14.

The lamb slain before the foundation, is symbolism of everyone before Incarnation into flesh Romans 8:20, Isaiah 53, is a repetitive journey in our awakening through suffering, our Christ within going through labor pains of spiritual growth as children of the living God.

 

[Idolater]

Pops, the Bible teaches that if Christ did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is false.

But the reverse is also true: If Christ did rise from the dead, ALL OTHER RELIGIONS (including Islam) are false.

Because Christ did in fact rise from the dead, then Christianity is true, and we don't have to read other "sacred texts" (and I use that term loosely) to know that they are false, because Christ affirmed what was taught in the Old Testament, which teaches that Israel is God's chosen people, and that Christ was the one the prophecies spoke of, that He was the coming Messiah who would establish His Kingdom on Earth.

Beautiful post! :up:

 

[Idolater]

I dont know what 'bishops' you could trust, since there isnt much of a historical record beyond the canonical gospels that has solid historical support beyond maybe fabricated lists.

Titus and Timothy are identified in Sacred Scripture as bishops, and Paul wrote epistles to them both. Beyond that, we know of a variety of named bishops in the earliest Church, and then above all, we can trust the bishop of Rome the Pope, Peter's successor as supreme pastor of the whole Church here on earth.

You'd have to provide some solid evidence for an unbroken apostolic succession in the first 3 centuries continuing to the present RCC church. The first 2-3 centuries appear pretty sparse to establish an unbroken chain. You are free to share the evidence.

All we'd really need, if we demanded such evidence, is the unbroken chain of popes, who are all bishops, and we don't have any reason to think that bishops were consecrated through any other means that the sacrament of Holy Orders, the imposition of hands, performed by bishops. Today, we have all the infallible and authoritative teachings on matters of faith and morals, as taught together by all bishops who are in communion with the Holy See, and we don't have any reason to think that any of it originated from anybody else but the Apostles themselves.

Thats catholic tradition and belief, which must be held to give the religion credence.

There is no reason to suspect that Holy Orders as practiced today, and as depicted in the Bible, has been anything other than that, in between then and now.

Would have to research that, but much can be creatively supplied by tradition and maybe forged writings? Forgery was common in the first few centuries, so alot appears up for grabs for religious innovation/invention.

There's really no reason, outside of skepticism bordering on cynicism, to suspect that today's bishops aren't the bona fide successors of the Apostles.

I get that, since the Eucharist originated with him as a mystery-religion rite (probably then interpolated into the gospels), whereby by spiritual communion with the god-man, some sharing of divinity or nourishment is achieved by taking in his elements.

While I agree with the characterization of the Eucharist as 'communion' and 'nourishment,' I disagree that it originated with Paul, since Christ Himself clearly instituted this sacrament, recorded for us in three different Gospel accounts.

The resurrection of Jesus can be taken figuratively as well, even if an actual historical event did not take place, if it was just a myth, and the placebo effect would work just as well (?).

If Christ's Resurrection is fictional and not historical, then the Bible itself testifies that the whole faith is bunk, so I've got to disagree with you here.

I get that.

:thumb:

Thats the story/ticket line anyways. I take it more figuratively, the esoteric meaning or value in the story, the process of transformation of the Christ in man, which is what I think its all about anyways, as far as what 'religious experience' can be had within this system.

While there's nothing wrong with, and it may in fact be laudable, seeing Christ's Resurrection in this way BEYOND its importance as a fact of history, it is not Christian to see it only in this way.