Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How much of the bible is literally true
Options
Comments
-
Bob_Marley wrote: »Thing is though, yet again everything from Arianism to Mormonism to JW's to the Westboro baptists and the thousand of other versions of claimed Christianity, that have dumped traditional Christian interpretation to suit, will claim their latest interpretation is the one that should now be considered inerrant and inspired.
Some will indeed claim their theology the one true one. Others, like me, will suppose a never ending quest to mine closer approximations to the truth - supposing it won't ever neccessarily be fully arrived at. It's not so much true but (considered) truer. And therefore more useful.
I can't legislate for others supposing their interpretation inerrant. Whether their theology comparatively new, or supposing itself having it's roots in apostolic teaching.
That's their affair. They and those who chose to follow that path will reap whatever goes with it, for better or worse. Just as I will.
The positive weight of tradition is only positive if the tradition correctly rooted. If incorrectly rooted, the tradition based theology is worse than the alternative claims to inerrancy - since the incorrectly rooted theology is more firmly rooted in its incorrectness.
The simple answer to your objection is "so what?". People will enjoy the fruits of their approach - whatever the approach. Each is responsible for the theology they adopt for themselves0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Some will indeed claim their theology the one true one. Others, like me, will suppose a never ending quest to mine closer approximations to the truth - supposing it won't ever neccessarily be fully arrived at. It's not so much true but (considered) truer. And therefore more useful.
I can't legislate for others supposing their interpretation inerrant. Whether their theology comparatively new, or supposing itself having it's roots in apostolic teaching.
That's their affair. They and those who chose to follow that path will reap whatever goes with it, for better or worse. Just as I will.
The positive weight of tradition is only positive if the tradition correctly rooted. If incorrectly rooted, the tradition based theology is worse than the alternative claims to inerrancy - since the incorrectly rooted theology is more firmly rooted in its incorrectness.
The simple answer to your objection is "so what?". People will enjoy the fruits of their approach - whatever the approach. Each is responsible for the theology they adopt for themselves
Oh indeed, people are absolutely free to interpret things anyway that personally suits them best - from Atheists to Arianists to JW's and all the thousands of other versions of pick and mix Christianity, and it's not confined to Christianity people can and do also choose to interpret anything from history to science to politics to morality to conventional and alternative medicine any way they want to.0 -
Bob_Marley wrote: »Oh indeed, people are absolutely free to interpret things anyway that personally suits them best - from Atheists to Arianists to JW's and all the thousands of other versions of pick and mix Christianity, and it's not confined to Christianity people can and do also choose to interpret anything from history to science to politics to morality to conventional and alternative medicine any way they want to.
RC is just another pick from the mix. Interpreting the bible to advocate tradition on a par with scripture.
You going to make a case or just ignore the flaws pointed out in your own thinking?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »RC is just another pick from the mix. Interpreting the bible to advocate tradition on a par with scripture.
You going to make a case or just ignore the flaws pointed out in your own thinking?
The traditional christian interpretation of scripture does not contradict it.
To much complaint over the years, the eastern and western churches are not a pick and mix, they've held to the same positions Christians always traditionally have - if you want to ignore all the historical Christian councils and the study of countless Christian saints, bishops and theologians, and how Christians have always interpreted scripture, and invent your own interpretation of history and scripture that suits you, that's entirely your prerogative - go for it.0 -
Bob_Marley wrote: »The traditional christian interpretation of scripture does not contradict it.
How do you figure that? If not by comparing scripture with tradition* and finding no conflict.
When others do precisely as you do but find differently you turn to..To much complaint over the years, the eastern and western churches are not a pick and mix, they've held to the same positions Christians always traditionally have - if you want to ignore all the historical Christian councils and the study of countless Christian saints, bishops and theologians, and how Christians have always interpreted scripture, and invent your own interpretation of history and scripture that suits you, that's entirely your prerogative - go for it.
1. Age imbues a view with inerrancy??
2. False premise. No one is suggesting that all traditional views are erroneous. One does as you presumably do and compares scripture with the view and draws conclusions about them. Kettle pot black - since they do as you do?
Or maybe you don't do your own evaluation and simply suppose longstanding view = inerrant view. Which too is a personal stance of yours.
Which is it? If neither, what else permits you to arrive at the conclusion you do.
3. If the east and west have always held to tradition the why east and west?
*Christians have always held... No they haven't. Tradition is something which evolved over the years and the idea that there is one tradition that has always been held by every Christian is a nonsense. What you refer to is something which became a majority view for a period of time.0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »How do you figure that? If not by comparing scripture with tradition* and finding no conflict.
When others do precisely as you do but find differently you turn to..
1. Age imbues a view with inerrancy??
2. False premise. No one is suggesting that all traditional views are erroneous. One does as you presumably do and compares scripture with the view and draws conclusions about them. Kettle pot black - since they do as you do?
Or maybe you don't do your own evaluation and simply suppose longstanding view = inerrant view. Which too is a personal stance of yours.
Which is it? If neither, what else permits you to arrive at the conclusion you do.
But other countless interpretations of scripture from new Atheism, to Mormans to JW's conflict with how Christians have traditionally understood and interpreted the same scripture. That's what makes their interpretation different in the first place and not the same.antiskeptic wrote: »3. If the east and west have always held to tradition the why east and west?
*Christians have always held... No they haven't. Tradition is something which evolved over the years and the idea that there is one tradition that has always been held by every Christian is a nonsense. What you refer to is something which became a majority view for a period of time.
Given that eastern and western Christianity spit in 1054, it's quite remarkable they are so similar in theology and worship over thousand years later, or actually not when you consider the importance they place on interpreting scripture as Christians always have.
But remember, you're perfectly free to dump historical Christian interpretation, and a thousand years of study, theologians, saints, bishops and church councils, to re-interpret scripture any way you want, just like everyone else is from new atheism, to JW's is. - We absolutely need such free will, and for people to come up with all sorts that suits them, as it proves God gave people the choice, and they can't claim they didn't have it later.0 -
Bob_Marley wrote: »But other countless interpretations of scripture from new Atheism, to Mormans to JW's conflict with how Christians have traditionally understood and interpreted the same scripture. That's what makes their interpretation different in the first place and not the same.
Given that eastern and western Christianity spit in 1054, it's quite remarkable they are so similar in theology and worship over thousand years later, or actually not when you consider the importance they place on interpreting scripture as Christians always have.
But remember, you're perfectly free to dump historical Christian interpretation, and a thousand years of study, theologians, saints, bishops and church councils, to re-interpret scripture any way you want, just like everyone else is from new atheism, to JW's is. - We absolutely need such free will, and for people to come up with all sorts that suits them, as it proves God gave people the choice, and they can't claim they didn't have it later.
Could you go back to the start of my post and answer the actual questions asked and the specific points raised in the sequence they occur?
I get you've a beef, but it's time to see whether it holds water or not.
You up for it?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Could you go back to the start of my post and answer the actual questions asked and the specific points raised in the sequence they occur?
I get you've a beef, but it's time to see whether it holds water or not.
You up for it?
I'm not the one after inventing an imaginary 'beef' and resorting to ad homiem.
I've repeatedly replied to your posts and repeatedly answered (due to giving you the benefit of the doubt) but hey presto - you've ignored the answers and actual points again. - I'm not going to reply again to any other ad nauesum, strawman or likewise fallacious argument.
Remember this - you can interpret scripture any which way that suits and pleases you, and it's been explained to you why it's important that you do.
0 -
For all intents and purposes I am a non believer in God. In saying that I do believe in some parts of The Bible. That may seem like an oxymoron to many but hear me out. I do believe that someone called Jesus existed. I do believe he had the power to turn water into wine and turn so few loaves and fishes into many more. Jesus was an innovator and visionary. He knew by waiting for bigger harvests more loaves could be made. The same with waiting for more fish to be in the right area at the same time meant more fish could be shoaled. He was probably ahead of his time in a lot of ways with fermentation which meant he could see how to combine water and other products with grapes to turn into wine. Every generation has an innovator that turns the tables on everything, one person who is talked about for centuries and Jesus was like the Galileo of his time. Moses parting the Red Sea was him having the ingenuity to build a passible bridge structure to make sure people could cross a body of water. This is my take on some of Bible stories. I can share more if you wish. Give me what you want in The Bible explained and I'll try to do that for you.0
-
For all intents and purposes I am a non believer in God. In saying that I do believe in some parts of The Bible. That may seem like an oxymoron to many but hear me out. I do believe that someone called Jesus existed. I do believe he had the power to turn water into wine and turn so few loaves and fishes into many more. Jesus was an innovator and visionary. He knew by waiting for bigger harvests more loaves could be made. The same with waiting for more fish to be in the right area at the same time meant more fish could be shoaled. He was probably ahead of his time in a lot of ways with fermentation which meant he could see how to combine water and other products with grapes to turn into wine. Every generation has an innovator that turns the tables on everything, one person who is talked about for centuries and Jesus was like the Galileo of his time. Moses parting the Red Sea was him having the ingenuity to build a passible bridge structure to make sure people could cross a body of water. This is my take on some of Bible stories. I can share more if you wish. Give me what you want in The Bible explained and I'll try to do that for you.
Heeling the blind & the crippled?0 -
Advertisement
-
Heeling the blind & the crippled?
Like what is happening now but on a much smaller scale with blindness, making sure they had someone with them at all times so the person who wasn't blind could describe the surrounding areas to them. Similarly to the blind aspect, the crippled person was piggybacking an able bodied person so they could still see things from a standing point of view. They obviously hadn't the ingenuity or foresight (pun intended) to invent a lot of things back then so they were limited to what they could have.0 -
Like what is happening now but on a much smaller scale with blindness, making sure they had someone with them at all times so the person who wasn't blind could describe the surrounding areas to them. Similarly to the blind aspect, the crippled person was piggybacking an able bodied person so they could still see things from a standing point of view. They obviously hadn't the ingenuity or foresight (pun intended) to invent a lot of things back then so they were limited to what they could have.
Not saying you’re wrong or even saying Jesus did in fact do this, but, I’d imagine being blind 2k years ago is the same as being blind today! Big difference between partially blind & full blind.
I understand though that partial blindness or progressive bad eye sight wouldn’t have the norm in that time due to the low life expectancy, I’d guess if you weren’t born with it it never affected you to the extent that you could claim to be ‘cured’ from any type of blindness?0 -
Bob_Marley wrote: »I'm not the one after inventing an imaginary 'beef' and resorting to ad homiem.
I've repeatedly replied to your posts and repeatedly answered (due to giving you the benefit of the doubt) but hey presto - you've ignored the answers and actual points again. - I'm not going to reply again to any other ad nauesum, strawman or likewise fallacious argument.
The beef is there and it's fair enough. You suppose the actuality of multiple personal interpretations the outcome of incorrect approach. That's a fair point. The question is however, is your approach any better?
If there are problems with your approach, then we're back to supposing which way most correct, in light of the fact both have problems.
I detect unwillingness to address specific questions aimed investigating problems with your approach. That unwillingness outs by way of mentioning the problems (yet again) in "my" approach.
To recap the enquiry into your approach.
I assume your declaration of "tradition not conflicting with scripture":
- not to be the result of personal assessment. I've asked whether it is (for that generates an immediate problem with your approach) and you haven't given a direct answer to the question.
- to be the result of faith in tradition. Faith that tradition is inerrant. Faith that long age imbues correctness.
You can say that Chrisians have always held the traditional view all you like but:
- Christians haven't always held a traditional view. The traditional view has been subject to schisms - rendering a number of now-traditional views. The view has evolved - making it impossible for all Christians at all times to hold the traditional view. Your evade that point - rendering, for example, the 11th century schism but a storm in a teacup. Have you read about that schism?
What about disagreements that occurred whilst the traditional view was being formulated. How unanimity when disagreement? What about the Protestant reformation? It knocks a hole in the notion that all Christians at all times have held a traditional view - given the P.R. generated yet another now-traditional view. Let me guess: all dissenting views over the years are labelled heretics/mistaken/not Christians? Fair enough if that's the approach: all Christians at all times have held the traditional view - because if they haven't they they aren't Christians?
- even if all ("all" being achieved by stripping out dissenters) Christians held one your particular traditional view for a very long time, it doesn't mean anything, unless you suppose tradition = inerrancy. You haven't addressed this point either.
Perhaps avoid repeating the problems arising from "my" approach and deal with the questions aimed at your own approach.0 -
The Truth is in the Holy Catholic Church, and nowhere else.0
-
3nyv2t7ab5qmcz wrote: »The Truth is in the Holy Catholic Church, and nowhere else.
I just had a free association moment. It went thus:
"Rabbits are brave, rabbits are brave"0 -
3nyv2t7ab5qmcz wrote: »The Truth is in the Holy Catholic Church, and nowhere else.
Sigh...and there was me just starting to like you.
The Truth is in Jesus Christ and no one else and no where else.0 -
For all intents and purposes I am a non believer in God. In saying that I do believe in some parts of The Bible. That may seem like an oxymoron to many but hear me out. I do believe that someone called Jesus existed. I do believe he had the power to turn water into wine and turn so few loaves and fishes into many more. Jesus was an innovator and visionary. He knew by waiting for bigger harvests more loaves could be made. The same with waiting for more fish to be in the right area at the same time meant more fish could be shoaled. He was probably ahead of his time in a lot of ways with fermentation which meant he could see how to combine water and other products with grapes to turn into wine. Every generation has an innovator that turns the tables on everything, one person who is talked about for centuries and Jesus was like the Galileo of his time. Moses parting the Red Sea was him having the ingenuity to build a passible bridge structure to make sure people could cross a body of water. This is my take on some of Bible stories. I can share more if you wish. Give me what you want in The Bible explained and I'll try to do that for you.
Do you believe that Jesus was the son of God ? - we are told he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, or God via the Trinity.
Do you believe Jesus visibly ascended into heaven post the resurrection ? - if not what happened to his mortal remains or should I say half mortal remains ?0 -
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.Sandra Gigantic U-boat wrote: »Sigh...and there was me just starting to like you.
The Truth is in Jesus Christ and no one else and no where else.
This is the basis of the infallibility of the Church. The safeguarding of truth must be given to living people, not just recorded in a book (which is open to different interpretations).
The Spirit did not abandon the Church when the apostles died!0 -
-
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.
This is the basis of the infallibility of the Church. The safeguarding of truth must be given to living people, not just recorded in a book (which is open to different interpretations).
The Spirit did not abandon the Church when the apostles died!
I was watching Louis Theroux's doc on Westboro Baptist Church - those of God Hates Fags fame.
I'm not for a second supposing the RC church on a par with Phelps and his clan, but what struck me was the similarity between their approach and the approach shared by yourself, Oweny and Bob
That is, a lack of ability to present a coherent, sustained train of thought leading you to the conclusions you do. What takes the place of giving a reason for the hope that you have is dogged repetition of a mantra - again and again, as if by sheer repetition you can make the mantra stick.
For example, there is simply nothing in the scripture cited above which connects what is said with what you hold it to say. No mention of an institutional church - just a statement addressed to whoever the "you's" are. No mention of the manner by which the guidance will take place (which can as easily mean spirit led individuals reading the Bible)
Huge doctrines, pulled rabbit-from-a-hat like. And it's like that all the way through: tiny slivers of scripture to support cornerstone doctrines of "The Church" (not least it's own primacy). If those slivers of scripture are the mortar holding the bricks together, then the bricks themselves are the huge leaps of assumption made - of the type you make in your own "reading" of the passage.
You, like the Phelps', simply ignore the problem and go on shouting the same old dogma from the rooftops. You don't apparently realise how asinine this approach appears to people who are in a position to apply a modicum of reasoned thinking to the conclusions they arrive at: be they atheists or Christians.
Just like the Phelps' do, you use the objection raised against your position as a proof of the blindness/lostness/sinfulness/rebelliousness of all those who can but only bewilderingly facepalm at these antics.
I know I'm like a voice calling in the wilderness on this. Your response, if any, will follow the same old lines.0 -
Advertisement
-
antiskeptic wrote: »I was watching Louis Theroux's doc on Westboro Baptist Church - those of God Hates Fags fame.
I'm not for a second supposing the RC church on a par with Phelps and his clan, but what struck me was the similarity between their approach and the approach shared by yourself, Oweny and Bob
That is, a lack of ability to present a coherent, sustained train of thought leading you to the conclusions you do. What takes the place of giving a reason for the hope that you have is dogged repetition of a mantra - again and again, as if by sheer repetition you can make the mantra stick.
For example, there is simply nothing in the scripture cited above which connects what is said with what you hold it to say. No mention of an institutional church - just a statement addressed to whoever the "you's" are. No mention of the manner by which the guidance will take place (which can as easily mean spirit led individuals reading the Bible)
Huge doctrines, pulled rabbit-from-a-hat like. And it's like that all the way through: tiny slivers of scripture to support cornerstone doctrines of "The Church" (not least it's own primacy). If those slivers of scripture are the mortar holding the bricks together, then the bricks themselves are the huge leaps of assumption made - of the type you make in your own "reading" of the passage.
You, like the Phelps', simply ignore the problem and go on shouting the same old dogma from the rooftops. You don't apparently realise how asinine this approach appears to people who are in a position to apply a modicum of reasoned thinking to the conclusions they arrive at: be they atheists or Christians.
Just like the Phelps' do, you use the objection raised against your position as a proof of the blindness/lostness/sinfulness/rebelliousness of all those who can but only bewilderingly facepalm at these antics.
I know I'm like a voice calling in the wilderness on this. Your response, if any, will follow the same old lines.
Still with the ad homiem ?
Taking a look at all the ad homiem, most ironically, what you've just unknowingly described there perfectly in those paragraphs about others is actually yourself. Phelps also had a blinding hatred of Catholics and Catholicism, and ignored how Christianity traditionally interpreted scripture, and all the generations of expert theologians and scholars, saints and councils that came before, and decided to suit himself instead, profess himself in his pride and ignorance as the sole authority of scripture in order to indulge his own desires in prejudge and sectarianism . . and that's exactly how he ended up where he did.
We absolutely need such free will, and for people to come up with all sorts that suits them about scripture, it serves God's purpose, as it absolutely proves God gave people the choice, and they can't claim they didn't have a choice later.0 -
Bob_Marley wrote: »Still with the ad homiem ?
I'm criticizing the form of approach taken by yourself and others. It can't be helped that the people who offer this form of approach are attached to the criticism. I criticize JC's form of approach along those same lines when it comes to Creationism: repeating the same old dogma and seemingly unwilling to be diverted from repeating it no matter how often the problems are pointed out.
It's not personal attackPhelps also had a blinding hatred of Catholics and Catholicism
Phelps seemingly has a blinding hatred of everyone except those of his view. RC is nothing special in that so no special connection need be made.
Can you see how argumentation works in this example? The position of RC isn't improved because of Phelps hatred of it. So your making that point is rebutted.and ignored how Christianity traditionally interpreted scripture, and all the generations of expert theologians and scholars, saints and councils that came before, and decided to suit himself instead, profess himself in his pride and ignorance as the sole authority of scripture in order to indulge his own desires in prejudge and sectarianism . . and that's exactly how he ended up where he did.
As I said:
"simply ignore the problem and go on shouting the same old dogma from the rooftops."We absolutely need such free will, and for people to come up with all sorts that suits them about scripture, it serves God's purpose, as it absolutely proves God gave people the choice, and they can't claim they didn't have a choice later.
You're in the same boat, presuming you arrived at the view you did by free will and not like ultra-Calvinists like Phelps supposedly did.
The only way to elevate yourself out of the same boat as everyone else is by argumentation, not by mere assertion. Mere assertion counts for nothing.
Pig's might fly... which is why I made the Phelps connection. Different dogma same bottom line: constant regurgitation of it in the hope that by doing so, anything will change.0 -
Joe, that's a difficult question to answer.
Personally, I think it's ok to take a lot of the stories as allegorical.
We know that the creation of the universe didn't happen in 6 days. But then the bible is not a science book. It should be looked upon as the history of our salvation.
I have doubts that Noah's Ark ever existed, maybe it did. But I think the important idea is that God saves those who live according to his laws and destroy those who fight against him.
In any case the stories you mentioned are from the Old Testament. We Christians place more importance on the New Testament.
You do realise that if you ask the DUP leaders in NI, those collapsing Governments, they will say it did.
And that the earth is 4000 years old.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »I'm criticizing the form of approach taken by yourself and others. It can't be helped that the people who offer this form of approach are attached to the criticism. I criticize JC's form of approach along those same lines when it comes to Creationism: repeating the same old dogma and seemingly unwilling to be diverted from repeating it no matter how often the problems are pointed out.
I don't think you understand the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. The person or persons are utterly irrelevant to the validity of that argument, and so is rejecting an argument based on who presents it. The only thing relevant is the subject, the premises and the points. Anything else is a completely unproductive waste of time.antiskeptic wrote: »Phelps seemingly has a blinding hatred of everyone except those of his view. RC is nothing special in that so no special connection need be made.
Neither of these claims is correct. Phelps went out of his way to single out Catholics, Catholicism, Jews and Homosexuals. Your points always involve some rant or giveaway jibe about Catholics or Catholicism, whereas I could not care less what denomination someone is or is not, that's their own God given free will choice.antiskeptic wrote: »Can you see how argumentation works in this example? The position of RC isn't improved because of Phelps hatred of it. So your making that point is rebutted.
More strawmanning, no where did I make that claim. This really is so boring. The point was Phelps was also engaging in argumentum ad hominem.antiskeptic wrote: »As I said:
"simply ignore the problem and go on shouting the same old dogma from the rooftops."
More strawmaning, what was being discussed was the interpretation, understanding, and considerable study of scripture traditionally held by Christians, and how you get everything from Arianism to Westboro 'theology' when you dump it and invent one to suit yourself.antiskeptic wrote: »You're in the same boat, presuming you arrived at the view you did by free will and not like ultra-Calvinists like Phelps supposedly did.
The only way to elevate yourself out of the same boat as everyone else is by argumentation, not by mere assertion. Mere assertion counts for nothing.
Pig's might fly... which is why I made the Phelps connection. Different dogma same bottom line: constant regurgitation of it in the hope that by doing so, anything will change.
And back you are again, complaining about Catholicism (note using the word boat instead, in the vain hope no one notices it being repeated yet again.) and people and 'floors' instead of the actual point of where ignoring traditional Christian interpretation of scripture leads . . more argumentum ad nauseam, devoid of any actual points concerning the subject.
I can't believe I've responded to and fed fallacious argumentation and soap boxing yet again . . . I really need to spend my time elsewhere other than this forum.0 -
You do realise that if you ask the DUP leaders in NI, those collapsing Governments, they will say it did.
And that the earth is 4000 years old.
No intelligent person would bother wasting their time asking any political party anything, least of all the DUP or SF.
Ironically, literal fundamentalism is also the favorite preserve of anti-Christians. Scripture also explains that to God a thousand years is like a day, and a day is like a thousand years, human time has no meaning for an infinite spirit. The bible is primarily a book about spirituality, not physicality.0 -
What you seem to be really saying there is that the interpretation I've presented is erroneous while yours is presumably correct. In fact I find this comment insulting. I suspect you're immediately rejecting what I say just because I'm giving the Catholic viewpoint.antiskeptic wrote: »That is, a lack of ability to present a coherent, sustained train of thought leading you to the conclusions you do. What takes the place of giving a reason for the hope that you have is dogged repetition of a mantra - again and again, as if by sheer repetition you can make the mantra stick.
So, the verse doesn't mention church, not to mention institutional, so what? Jesus was speaking with the apostles so the "you" is the apostles, not you or me.antiskeptic wrote: »For example, there is simply nothing in the scripture cited above which connects what is said with what you hold it to say. No mention of an institutional church - just a statement addressed to whoever the "you's" are. No mention of the manner by which the guidance will take place (which can as easily mean spirit led individuals reading the Bible)
Instead of the ad hominem attach, try considering that you might just be wrong.antiskeptic wrote: »You, like the Phelps', simply ignore the problem and go on shouting the same old dogma from the rooftops. You don't apparently realise how asinine this approach appears to people who are in a position to apply a modicum of reasoned thinking to the conclusions they arrive at: be they atheists or Christians.
I don't want to get into a protracted debate about this, so if you're interested, have a look at this New Advent article.0 -
John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.
This is the basis of the infallibility of the Church. The safeguarding of truth must be given to living people, not just recorded in a book (which is open to different interpretations).
The Spirit did not abandon the Church when the apostles died!
The church is made up of people and they are in no way infallible.Thats why the church is to judge what others say as being from God and decide whether it is or not.
As for needing more than the Book. Jesus was quiet clear about the judgements on those who added to or took away from the words of the Book.
As for the apostles being dead. The ones noted in the Bible are, but I know a few still. Just like I know some prophets , teachers, pastors, evangelists etc....0 -
I hate these revisionalist Christians who try to reinterpret the faith and start telling us how we should live our lives. This is like Taliban. Many people assume Christianity is all a moderate and progressive faith unlike the 'third world faiths' as depicted by Taliban, ISIS, etc. in Islam, Hindu extremism and Buddhist extremism.
There are these Christians who think alcohol, pubs, music, films, social media, etc. are all against god and try and force these views on us. A lot of these Baptist churches in particular seem to be very extreme and have a low tolerance. I think the era of churches trying to tell us what we can and cannot do outside of real wrong like murder, robbery, etc. is in the past. Sadly, I see a LOT of young, educated people fall for oppressive Christianity.
The interpretations of the Bible by these types of Christian extremists truly rival the interpretation of the Koran by ISIS, Al Qaeda, etc. We are lucky that such types do not directly control a country but we can see a lot of the bad things about America come from predominantly white Christian fundamentalist supremacists today. Westboro Baptist Church being a major example.0
Advertisement