• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Misc All Things Religious

Sandbar said:
You don't get to cherry pick this. If it's the true word of god then biblical historians should all agree right? Your preacher is reading from a modern version of the bible that has been hacked to pieces for centuries. That's just a fact man. And you put your faith that they nailed it the first go around. What we are talking about here is evangelical versus protestant. I obviously lean protestant but that doesn't make me wrong
Click to expand...
The Bible is God inspired, a few men didn't just pen some stories and say "hey this it, this is the bible". It was prayerful consideration, the old testament books were accepted as Christ, the gospels are letters written by eye witness accounts of Christ and the early Christian church. The vast majority of scholars down through the ages agree that Enoch does not belong in the Bible based on exactly those things RC listed above. There have been many translations through the years but this is why one must study it prayerfully and understand the original meaning of many of the words in the Bible to understand it fully, when this is done, it hasn't changed from it's original writing.
 
metwannabe said:
The Bible is God inspired, a few men didn't just pen some stories and say "hey this it, this is the bible". It was prayerful consideration, the old testament books were accepted as Christ, the gospels are letters written by eye witness accounts of Christ and the early Christian church. The vast majority of scholars down through the ages agree that Enoch does not belong in the Bible based on exactly those things RC listed above. There have been many translations through the years but this is why one must study it prayerfully and understand the original meaning of many of the words in the Bible to understand it fully, when this is done, it hasn't changed from it's original writing.
Click to expand...
You believe that......I do not. It doesn't matter to be honest. If you believe all this I'm happy for you I really am but your way isn't the only way my friend. It simply isn't
 
Rain Cold said:
It is WIDELY believed by numerous historians and Biblical scholars that the book of Enoch was not written by Enoch and instead was written by a bunch of unknown authors. If you read the Bible and read the book of Enoch, it is wildly different in doctrine than the rest of Scripture. It's like if 500 years from now you were alive and found a bunch of Shakespeare's works and then found another unknown work that said this: "See Spot run. See spot jump. Spot is a nice doggie. Listen to Spot bark. Woof woof, says Spot", and then you tried to argue that it was a work of Shakespeare.
Click to expand...
Interestingly enough, the book of Enoch is referenced in the Bible as we know it. I believe it is in Jude where it is referred to so there is evidence that it predates the last books to be written in the Bible. I've read the Book of Enoch and much of is wildly prophetic if I remember correctly. One of the more interesting books left out of the Bible is the Gospel of Peter. Read its account of Jesus's trial and crucifixion.

That being said, I believe that the Bible should remain the way we know it today. Jesus condemns anyone who would add or take away from his words and I think that goes for the rest of God's word too. The other "lost" or forgotten books that were considered for inclusion in the Bible should be read as a supplement to the Bible at best and for curiosity for those who are interested in what they might say.
 
Sandbar said:
You believe that......I do not. It doesn't matter to be honest. If you believe all this I'm happy for you I really am but your way isn't the only way my friend. It simply isn't
Click to expand...
Ok, but you really can't claim to be a follower of Christ and not believe his word or that He is the only way. You just can't
 
Sandbar said:
This is nothing more than opinion raincold. It's your personal opinion and nothing more.
Click to expand...
It's not opinion. It's fact. Your opinion might be that the Bible is an untrustworthy document, and my opinion might be that it is a trustworthy document. But it's not an opinion in terms of how the Bible was established, no more than it is an opinion of how the USA was established. Your opinion might be that our constitutional republic is good and mine might be that it is bad. That's fine. But in terms of how it was established, that is not opinion.
 
metwannabe said:
Ok, but you really can't claim to be a follower of Christ and not believe his word or that He is the only way. You just can't
Click to expand...
Different people interpret the bible in different ways (STILL TO THIS VERY DAY). I am one of them. Is that not acceptable to evangelicals? I am a protestant you are the evangelical. Is there room for us both in heaven met?
 
weather bubba said:
Interestingly enough, the book of Enoch is referenced in the Bible as we know it. I believe it is in Jude where it is referred to so there is evidence that it predates the last books to be written in the Bible. I've read the Book of Enoch and much of is wildly prophetic if I remember correctly. One of the more interesting books left out of the Bible is the Gospel of Peter. Read its account of Jesus's trial and crucifixion.

That being said, I believe that the Bible should remain the way we know it today. Jesus condemns anyone who would add or take away from his words and I think that goes for the rest of God's word too. The other "lost" or forgotten books that were considered for inclusion in the Bible should be read as a supplement to the Bible at best and for curiosity for those who are interested in what they might say.
Click to expand...
This is partially my point. How are people 100% certain that this hasn't been done? I mean the first writings didn't occur until 40 years post death and was written over 100 years. That's a lot of room for errors and "misinterpretation" in that period of time
 
Sandbar said:
Different people interpret the bible in different ways (STILL TO THIS VERY DAY). I am one of them. Is that not acceptable to evangelicals? I am a protestant you are the evangelical. Is there room for us both in heaven met?
Click to expand...
Heaven will have anyone that has asked for forgiveness, repented of their sins because they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior, regardless of denomination. God doesn't care about the labels we put on us, but He does care about the heart.

TNT! Romans 10: 9-10 tells how we are saved, yes room for any who follow this.
9That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

But if you do not believe the word of God as the true word of God then how can you believe you have done what that word says must be done to be saved? Again, you cannot have it both ways. There is only one way my friend.
 
metwannabe said:
Heaven will have anyone that has asked for forgiveness, repented of their sins because they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and savior, regardless of denomination. God doesn't care about the labels we put on us, but He does care about the heart.

TNT! Romans 10: 9-10 tells how we are saved, yes room for any who follow this.
9That if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

But if you do not believe the word of God as the true word of God then how can you believe you have done what that word says must be done to be saved? Again, you cannot have it both ways. There is only one way my friend.
Click to expand...
We're going in circles here. When folks get defensive talking religion it's the jump off point for me.
 
Sandbar said:
We're going in circles here. When folks get defensive talking religion it's the jump off point for me.
Click to expand...
My apologies if I sounded defensive, that certainly was not my intent, simply trying to answer questions and give feedback as I see it.
 
Sandbar said:
You believe that......I do not. It doesn't matter to be honest. If you believe all this I'm happy for you I really am but your way isn't the only way my friend. It simply isn't
Click to expand...

The points you make are valid, its a major sticking point for Christianity as a whole....the bible of today left out a lot of early "books/gospels" etc from the earliest days of Christianity. Most here wont accept that man not god had control over what the bible ultimately became. For folks like me who dont believe its just another nail in the coffin, it was 367 AD before the bible in its current version existed, before that there where hundreds of gospels and books used by early Christians....many of those no longer exist. Why would god allow so many non canon stories and gospels exist to confuse and misguide people.

The easy answer is the bible is the way it is now because that is what god wanted.....you just got to wonder why he would let his one true word be confusing and a hodgepodge until 367....seems god would have sorted that out I dunno like immediately but hey god works in mysterious ways right.
 
Downeastnc said:
The points you make are valid, its a major sticking point for Christianity as a whole....the bible of today left out a lot of early "books/gospels" etc from the earliest days of Christianity. Most here wont accept that man not god had control over what the bible ultimately became. For folks like me who dont believe its just another nail in the coffin, it was 367 AD before the bible in its current version existed, before that there where hundreds of gospels and books used by early Christians....many of those no longer exist. Why would god allow so many non canon stories and gospels exist to confuse and misguide people.

The easy answer is the bible is the way it is now because that is what god wanted.....you just got to wonder why he would let his one true word be confusing and a hodgepodge until 367....seems god would have sorted that out I dunno like immediately but hey god works in mysterious ways right.
Click to expand...
I would encourage you to think about the point you're trying to make. I mean really think about it, and maybe you'll begin to realize the absurdity of it.
 
Rain Cold said:
I would encourage you to think about the point you're trying to make. I mean really think about it, and maybe you'll begin to realize the absurdity of it.
Click to expand...

There is no point to be made just the way it was. If you went back to the early 100's there would have been dozens of christian sects with lots of different dogma etc....weird that god would let all these incorrect version last so long.
 
Sandbar said:
Have you ever read the book of Enoch? I never even knew it existed but it isn't a part of the bible. Why is that? Because the Roman Catholic church had it removed is why which leads me to question what else they have hidden from humanity.
Click to expand...
If I may, this is an oversimplification of what happened. It isn't as though the Pope and Roman Catholic Church just one day up and decided, "Hey, let's rip some books out of the Bible!" That isn't how that went down. For what it's worth, the Catholic Bible actually has MORE books in it compared to most Protestant Bibles. So, if anything, it's more inclusive.

Canonicity is an involved topic requiring some study of the history of it and the "why" to understand how and why all that played out as it did. By the end of the first century, there were writings floating around. Some were written by apostles and people closely connected to the apostles and/or those who knew Jesus in person. Then, there were other writings. By the second century, there were a lot of other writings starting to enter the scene, and some of those came from split-off groups that began teaching heretical doctrines. Because of that, Christians were consolidating the writings of those they trusted, from the original apostolic witness, who were with Jesus and inspired by the Holy Spirit from the earliest days of the church. There were different categories of writings... those that were the primary texts of the New Testament, and then other writings that were "okay" to read if they were consistent with the teachings of the New Testament, although they were not considered to be in the same "inspired text" category of the writings that became known as the books of the New Testament (Old Testament and inter-testamental books that pre-dated the life of Jesus are even another topic).

So, what later "official" canonical councils did was just formally put into writing which writings were considered to be the inspired texts that carried authority. But, they were declaring what was believed to be the case across the churches, rather than some decision to "change" something per se.

Now... over time, as Christianity branched out into different transitions such as the western and eastern churches, further canonical differences unfolded. That too is a long story with different facets to it. There were books such as Enoch and others which fall in the category of the intertestamental books. Where the majority Protestant canon ended up, the Old Testament ended with the final writings of the prophets after the Jewish people returned to the land of Israel following Babylonian exile. It was generally thought that inspired writing took a pause around the time of Malachi and didn't resume until the life of Jesus and specifically the apostolic witnesses who were inspired to write what became the books of the New Testament.

I know that was long and involved, but in case any of that is interesting to anyone, there are some things for further study.
 
If you guys get the opportunity, research a man named Edgar Cayce who was absolutely brilliant with a beautiful mind. He was a devout christian who was blessed with an ability to heal by putting himself in a trance that allowed him to connect to information that he used to not only heal but solve mysteries of our past and predict the future. Reading about him will open your mind to the spirituality I have been speaking of. Just a phenomenal human
 
Sandbar said:
If you guys get the opportunity, research a man named Edgar Cayce who was absolutely brilliant with a beautiful mind. He was a devout christian who was blessed with an ability to heal by putting himself in a trance that allowed him to connect to information that he used to not only heal but solve mysteries of our past and predict the future. Reading about him will open your mind to the spirituality I have been speaking of. Just a phenomenal human
Click to expand...

Cayce was either nuts or worse a conman.
 
Sandbar said:
His readings were well documented even to this day. Do more than 5 minutes of research before you start flapping your gums on something you know nothing about (which is typical)
Click to expand...

I actually was very into this kind of thing as a young teen especially Cacye, Nostradamus etc. I was fascinated by Atlantis, Bermuda Triangle, Bigfoot etc

Cayce was a hack or mentally disturbed one, in hindsight he was wrong 99% of time. He certainly was not being divinely/ spiritually guided...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top