You're talking about methods for adding beliefs and behaviors. All religions including Christianity have that, as you point out with your various examples. In the US, yoga stores are teaching a style of physical exercise - and selling ridiculous clothing.
Yes, and when people impart information, it would be good of them to tell us which one they are (although maybe not strictly mandatory). That has been my entire and only point throughout this thread. I think it depends on what it is you're trying to do. Within theology, I imagine you're right. I imagine there are principles that are undeniably true, or at least which are undeniably true given some set of starting assumptions (and starting assumptions which people to a large extent have agreed upon). (this is a very loosely worded statement, if this turns out to be important, I might have caveats). However, within politics, the situation is different. A political system that strives to not be hypocritical would have to defend religion, not in proportion to how right they are, but to how likely their political rights are likely to be infringed upon. It just so happens that it is easy to dismiss, work around or trivialise the rights of people who you think are wrong (even people who really are wrong). I imagine many people who say "religion is all a matter of opinion" actually mean "there is a truth, but given that we can't agree on what that truth is, the only fair thing is to not accept any". Of course, there will also be people on either side of the debate who have some slightly different angle, or who have misunderstood it altogether, and that certainly makes it more difficult to make sense of the situation.
There are different denominations under the heading of traditional Christianity as described in the heading of this thread. The Bible Church I am a part of does not ascribe to any denomination. The denomination should not "define" us any way if we are a part of the Bodt of Christ.
Thanks for looking at Phil. 3, but what I meant to say was Phil 2. That passage to me descibes how God took on the form of man and became obedient even unto death. Of course Mormons will agree with that passage with a different meaning. Regardless, they teach they have two Books that supercede anything written in the Bible. That is why they can appear to be "agreeable".....only they have more.
I didn't say they're not. You are of course welcome to present any accounts of such activity in modern times.
Anyone that can be cardioverted is not dead yet, They have an abnormal cardiac rhythm, fibrillation, the heart is beating, but not pumping blood, the heart looks like a bag of worms, cardioversion actually stops the heart, in the hope of a normal sinus rhythm on the next cycle, proper medications are an absolute necessity as A.E.D.s sans drugs have a very low success rate and often show no shockable rhythms at the B.L.S. levels.
Fair point, I'm not so interested in denominations as such, I'm interested in people's interpretation of their religion. I just find that denomination gives a lot of that information.
Well, if they have an arguably valid interpretation of the text, we can't really exclude them based on their not following of the text.
From the historical, Christian theological perspective, there is a principle of exegesis. What that means, is there is a specific meaning, intended by the author. That meaning has corroboration from other texts, either by the same writer, or contemporaries, especially if the subject matter is the same. These are very carefully followed, from the earliest commentators, and other subsequent writers, who combine to provide an historical consensus on the exegesis of a passage. Biblical manuscripts did not just suddenly appear, but had confirmation and corroboration within the early church, the apostles, evangelists, and apologists. So the false narrative, that the biblical manuscripts are subjective, and mean whatever anyone wants them to mean is a distortion of historical reality. There are thousands of years of exegetical traditions, with each succeeding generation carrying the torch of Sound Doctrine. Departures and heresies are also historical, and have been documented from the earliest times. But to claim that false teachings and heresies are in the same category as orthodoxy, is to throw facts and reason away, and go with feeling based relativity .
To follow the reformed view of the scriptures, this is a pretty good summary of most protestants and likely many, if not most, catholics. There might be a detail or two that people quibble over, but i would think that most bible based Christians would agree with this exposition. I have italicized a couple of passasges that address the debate in this thread. Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing; which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased. II. Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament, which are these: Of the Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings, II Kings, I Chronicles, II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, The Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Of the New Testament: The Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians I, Corinthians II, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians I , Thessalonians II , To Timothy I , To Timothy II, To Titus, To Philemon, The Epistle to the Hebrews, The Epistle of James, The first and second Epistles of Peter, The first, second, and third Epistles of John, The Epistle of Jude, The Revelation of John. All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life. III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings. IV. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, depends not upon the testimony of any man, or Church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God. V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope. IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
Well Swensson....that is an honest question and I appreciate you for that. It is my belief that when He said He would send us a "teacher" (the Holy Spirit) to guide us in all Truth.....He wasn't kidding. I see the Truth being guarded by more hand written manuscripts than "Homers Odysey". I see the painstaking work of the "Cannonization" where men of multiple viewpoints, denominations and languages, debated, prayed and discerned what were the intents of God. I believe the Holy Spirit "safeguarded" that representation. Foremost, I believe that when I delved into the Word of God, not being indoctrinated from childhood, I saw the Word as everything it said it was and It testifies to itself, both New and Old. No man is an island to himself and even those that preach must be held accountable. The Body of Christ holds itself accountable. Iron sharpens iron and the Holy Spirit is the honing stone. No denomination has the complete answer yet they offer differnt gifts. "There is a way that seems right to men but the end thereof is the way of death." It is our job to discern. We can "trust" what Jesus said, or explore on our own. It is a choice.
So it seems you don't actually hold thee idea that additional texts invalidate themselves, since you accept them when "your side" does it. However, that seemed to be your only argument in your answer to my previous question. Obviously, they believe their texts are real, just like you believe yours are real, so the fact that you think your texts are justified doesn't really set you apart from them.
As far as I know, the Book of Mormon was substantiated by only one copy obtained in the early 1800's by Joseph Smith supposedly given to him by an angel and no witnesses around to substantiate that. It's writings are foundto be very similiar in style to those found both in the Bible and Free Masonry. You can believe what ever you want to.
While there are indeed passages that are subjective - even taking historical consensus into account - the problem is that Religious consensus (dogma of the day) influenced both those writing various books of the Bible and also those who copied the Bible down through the years. Some passages have been watered down to the point where the original meaning is completely lost. Other passages were inserted to make the story better conform with the dogma of the copyist. Some passages were deliberately mistranslated and whole books were removed.
I don't see that that changes anything. My point remains that That doesn't have anything to do with the believability of any other texts.
I previously gave you an example from the Catholic Encyclopedia - where the author of Matt engages in "Artistic Licence" when he uses Mark as a source document for his Gospel but omits a few passages that he feels are derogatory towards Jesus and/or the disciples. There are many passages in relation to sex that are deliberately mistranslated. Proverbs 6:26 for example - correctly rendered "A man can hire a prostitute for the price of a loaf of bread but, adultery will cost him his life" - many modern translations render this passage correctly. The KJV copyists can not handle the implications of this passage and render it "A prostitute will reduce a man to a loaf of bread" There are numerous other examples in relation to sex ... such as the improper and incorrect use of the word "Fornication". "Christ shed tears of blood" was a later addition - the overzealous copyist wanting to show Christs humanity. Many of the epistles attributed to Paul are Pseudepigrapha- as are numerous others such as 1 Peter. Entire books were removed such as the epistle of Barnabas. The OT stripped of most content relating to the Israelite belief in a Pantheon or "Divine Council" headed by El. Deuteronomy 32:43 The LXX (100-300 BC) reads: "O heavens, rejoice with Him Bow to Him, all sons of the divine O nations, rejoice with His people and let all angels of the divine strengthen themselves in Him. For He’ll avenge the blood of His sons, be vengeful, and wreak vengeance and recompense justice on his foes And the Lord will Cleanse His people’s land" This version refers to "Sons of the Divine" Fast forward a 1000 years and the passage reads Masoretic Text (700-1000AD) "O nations, rejoice His people For He’ll avenge the blood of His servants and wreak vengeance on His foes And will cleanse His people’s land" http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/DT32BibSac.pdf All references to "Sons of God" and even references to Angels have been removed. Even the reference to "Son" has been changed to Servants. When we go forward another 1000 years to a modern translation the passage reads: Rejoice, you nations with his people for he will avenge the blood of his servants; He will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people. We can see that this runs similar to the MT until the last sentence. The one passage that was the same the previous versions (LXX, MT) was "Cleanse his peoples land" This "Cleansing" in conjunction with wrecking vengeance and avenging the blood of his sons- refers to a particular kind of killing (something akin to xenocide in modern terms). The land wold be cleansed of people who were not up to snuff. The modern Bible version says nothing of the sort. It is the passage that has been "cleansed". In one case God is cleansing the land of undesirable people. In the other case God is making atonement for his land and people which is a completely different concept. The passage has been stripped of all previous meaning.
