why is God jealous? so jealous that he goes by the name "Jealous" this would seem to be more something someone would say that wanted to scare someone into believing their religion, them something an all powerful God woudl say? https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+34:14&version=KJV " Exodus 34:14 King James Version (KJV) 14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: "
Historical Christian scholarship and skepticism are twin sisters. Nobody is, or was, as scrutinizing as the early church fathers, the early churches, and the early apologists for the Christian faith and it's foundation: the biblical manuscripts. Apocryphal writings were not included in the canon for this very reason. The were viewed with skepticism, and had no historical validity as to authorship and credibility. The history of the early church goes hand in hand with the canonization process, and the writings of the early apologists chronicled that process. The early church fathers and apologists viewed the manuscripts very literally, and defended the scriptures to their own deaths. Accuracy and orthodoxy was constantly under attack, from enemies of Christianity, which continues to this day. None are/were more critical or cynical than Christian apologists, defending the historical Christian faith.
When it comes to just reading the Bible even then, I am bound to offend someone. They say things like: "Start with the New Testament or just ignore the Old Testament" "You're reading a corrupted translation" "You are not entitled to form your own opinion. You need a minister/priest from our Church to read it for you or have our study aids" "Don't read the Apocrypha" "Don't read it in a public place"
I find this passage from Irenaeus 3.3.3 to be a fascinating glimpse into the early church, with references to actual apostles, & showing a theological line & continuity of the faith.. in the context of growing heresy & false doctrines that were corrupting influences on the original message. 3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. 4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time, a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostlesthat, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles. Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm
Sorry, another long reference to the bible, and how we got it. Let's look at the Nicene Creed as adopted in 325 We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον) with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church. Historically, there was much conflict from false teachings, dubious 'letters', and 'gospels'.. ..heretical teachings from the likes of Arius and others, and no universal standard for defining the faith. Arius, the gnostics, and others spiritualized Jesus, denied His deity (or humanity), and/or added/removed things from the original manuscripts, that were used by the early church as a guide for orthodox faith. Irenaeus originated the phrase, in ~ ad 180, which was incorporated into the Nicene Creed. Here was his quote: Jesus Christ was not a mere man, begotten from Joseph in the ordinary course of nature, but was very God, begotten of the Father most high, and very man, born of the Virgin. Irenaeus affirms BOTH Jesus's Deity and His humanity, unlike the heretics, who denied either or both. Irenaeus authored a huge volume of work, quoting nearly every passage in the manuscripts, which became the consensus for a canon in Nicea, a century later. We owe a debt of gratitude, for the early church fathers, who constantly battled distortions, lies, and heresies, to preserve, for us, the historical, original scriptures compiled in the nt manuscripts. They 'defended the faith', that was once for all delivered to the redeemed. This is inadequate as an explanation, which it must be, using human, finite words to describe the Divine, Who is indefinable by mortal man.
The bible was the first thing printed, by a press A bible passage was the first thing broadcast over radio An American bible was approved by congress, for the education of the citizens Almost every president, and myriads of intelligent, productive, scientists and philosophers have esteemed and extolled the Bible The bible has been translated into more languages than any other book It is THE global best seller, year after year The bible is loved, hated, attacked and defended more than any book in the history of man ..kind of hard to diminish the significance of this compilation.. especially to western civilization. But the opposing, competing religious belief of Progressivism has been doing just that for decades.
The current (and historical) canon of scripture was a process spanning thousands of years. Even the new testament canon took nearly 400 years to become the standard we see today. Here is a decent timeline of the dates: 1400–400 B.C. Books of the Hebrew Old Testament written c. 250–200 B.C. The Septuagint, a popular Greek translation of the Old Testament, produced A.D. 45–85? Books of the Greek New Testament written 90 and 118 Councils of Jamnia give final affirmation to the Old Testament canon (39 books) 140-150 Marcion’s heretical “New Testament” incites orthodox Christians to establish a NT canon 303-306 Diocletian’s persecution includes confiscating and destroying New Testament Scriptures c. 305-310 Lucian of Antioch’s Greek New Testament text; becomes a foundation for later Bibles 367 Athanasius’s Festal Letter lists complete New Testament canon (27 books) for the first time 397 Council of Carthage establishes orthodox New Testament canon (27 books) c. 400 Jerome translates the Bible into Latin; this “Vulgate” becomes standard of medieval church Source: https://www.christianitytoday.com/h...e-christian-history-timeline.html#storystream The new testament manuscripts were a collection of letters, compilations, first hand accounts, and chronicles of the time. The early Christians had a few manuscripts or letters from apostles, with which to teach accurate orthodoxy of the new faith. And, because error and heresy was so common, credibility was needed to establish the teachings as original and reliable. Heresy was a major problem in the early church. False teachings were everywhere, confusing people, and if possible, leading them astray. So the credibility and authority of the early Christian manuscripts was PARAMOUNT in preserving the message of salvation for future generations. Councils were assembled for the purpose of sharing and comparing the manuscripts that were in actual use, by the early churches. Some were affirmed, some were not. Some had mixed opinions, as to their authenticity and veracity. All of the books/letters included in the canon we have today were used by early churches, quoted extensively by early apologists and church fathers, and had a history of source. Many questionable manuscripts were not included in the canon. Obviously there is much more to say, and volumes have been written, over the centuries, and different opinions given, about the significance of the canon of scripture. But it has stood the test of time, and for over 1500 years has been the guide and authority for the Christian faith. I welcome any comments, additions, or criticisms of this very simple summary.
There are plenty of decent, modern translations. Deeper study requires comparing different ones, but mostly referring the originals. Its just a book, written by human authors. You don't have to believe in inspiration to read it. It is the ONLY credible written record of the life and words of Jesus, so that is why most people suggest starting there. Offending others should be of no concern to a seeker of Truth. Why should the beliefs or opinions of others restrict you?
Just say'n, that if an omni-potent God really felt the Bible was important, He could have made it available to everyone on Earth faster than a middle-aged housewife from England was able to make her books available.
The bible is the key to understanding everything else, and the nature of everything else is the key to understanding the bible. The Word of God is implied in the bible. One of the most significant differences between the bible and the Word of God is that the Word of God is tested. The Word of God is the product of testing what one infers from the bible. There is an indispensable distinction, even when there is no difference, between what is implied and what is inferred. "Because the bible says" equates with 'because I infer'. "Because the bible says", can only be employed by those who have not outgrown their first impression of what the bible says. The bible is written in such a way as that people take more contradictory, many self-contradictory, inferences from the bible than from any other literary source in our history. Sheep Eat Meat A sheep is a ruminant. Ruminants have four chambers to their stomachs. The 3rd and 4th chamber are omnivorous like ours. The sheep take in the grass. The grass is prepared in the first chamber of the stomach. In the second chamber of their stomachs lives completely different animal - a bacteria. Those bacteria migrate from the second to the first chamber of the stomach and feast upon the prepared grass. They multiply exponentially. Later, after the sheep has finished grazing, those bacteria are brought back up, and the sheep chew on it. They ruminate of the 'cud'. That cud is not only meat, it's alive. I read the bible. Within me lives another being - the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit brings that written word up into remembrance, and I ruminate on it. It's those ideas that are brought up into remembrance, and upon which I ruminate, that are the Word of God. That is not only the "meat of the word" it's the "living word". When we 'chew the cud', when we ruminate upon those portions of the bible which the indwelling Holy Spirit brings up into remembrance, we partake of the Living Word of God. To paraphrase the only apostle to us gentiles - Surely, by now you should be eating meat of your own, but you are living on milk as one who is not yet weened. READ THE BIBLE. Don't suckle at your pastor's teat. Pablum is partially digested, regurgitated food that birds feed to their chicks. Do you really want to live on that.
Well, i guess you could say that the bible has been 'made available' to anyone, now. You can read it free, online, and it is translated into more languages than 'Ethel's Guide to Shepherd's Pie.' I'll credit God for making that happen..
Where is the major flaw? The Council of NIcea 325? That's when they really screwed the . . . Even rejecting what is today the oldest written Gospel known. The Gospel of Thomas. He rose in spirit, not body. Now the province of the Gnostics.
No. But, I do believe in the "Passover Conspiracy" Isaiah laid out what the Messiah must do to be the Messiah. Raising the dead. Healing. Being abused. Jesus was a learned man of his time and knew how to tag the required bases. The problem remains he did not reestablish Israel and raise all the dead instead promising the Kingdom of Heaven. Jews today do not have Heaven nor Paradise. Just waiting for the Messiah to raise them. At that time and today, Jews do not go after converts. You are "chosen" or not. Peoples' such as Greeks often practiced some aspects of Judaism but were never able to become Jews. An alternative to the "old Gods", Zeus, etc. Jesus even said he did not come for the Gentiles. Paul opened the floodgate for them. And the Gentiles ran with it. Peter and the Jewish side of Christianity got buried. Rob Peter To Pay Paul! Moi Chosen but grew up with no religion. Easter Bunny and Santa Claus All s Are Equally Culpable for the Crucifixion of Jesus. Thus spaketh Moi
Jesus had a brother named Simon. Simon had a son named Judas. In Matthew 10:36 the Jesus character said that a man' s enemies will be those of his own household. Who turned out to be Jesus' s greatest enemy that cost him his life? Judas. That fits the biblical trope about strife between family members. So it makes sense for Jesus to have been Judas's uncle.
The Jesus character came from a long line of whores. He spent a lot of time with them before he got nailed.
This is simply nonsense. The writings of the Enlightenment thinkers/ Classical Liberalism formed the basis for the Founding Fathers abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual. The main purpose of the Enlightenment thinkers was to come up with society where authority of Gov't came from "consent of the Governed" as opposed to "Divine Right/God". Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind. -- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88 ) , from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258 When philosophic reason is clear and certain by intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it.-- John Adams, from Rufus K Noyes, Views of Religion, quoted from from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief It was not some big secret what the founders thought of Christianity. As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?-- John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816 Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
No, the BASIS for Natural Law is a Moral Embedder.. a Creator Who has 'endowed' us with self evident, unalienable rights. THAT is the basis for self rule, instead of a superior elite who are better equipped to govern the common man. *We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights* Equality, not elitism, is the basis for self rule. And that equality comes from the Creator.
The "Bible Project" has a lot of easy to watch and easy to comprehend YouTube videos. They are by no means the last word on Bible studies, but rather a furtherance of... Definitely agree usfan, God embedded our moral code.. reading 'Karamazov Brothers" by Dostoevsky now, which investigates that very principle.
It is a matter of perspective. Some people can see the Hand of God, moving throughout history.. it is not a random, out of control chaos of purposelessness, but a Divinely guided orchestration. And we are nearer to the Crescendo of the human Overture than ever before. When we look back on the human experience, we will see 'His-story' as the central thread of humanity. That is the biblical theme, not random chaos. It may seem like random chaos to us, at times, but it's not.
You do not understand Classical Liberalism - the ideas of the enlightenment thinkers. One of the main posits how moral's arose out of a State of nature. I once wrote a Political Science Term Paper on this topic entitled "Why should Man Obey the Law". The paper draws on the ideas of Locke, Hobbes and so on. I can explain exactly how morals are derived from the "State of Nature" if you like - according to these thinkers - which are the same ideas that the founders used. You moved the goalposts. There is a difference between a system being based on "Christianity" and a system that has the idea of some creative force. That the founders used the term "Creator" was not an accident. This term was specifically chosen so as "NOT" to invoke the Christian God. You also misunderstand the point of your quote from the DOI. The sole point of this phrase is to put individual liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't - not to make a statement in relation to some religion being the basis for our system of Gov't. "Context Matters". The Context of the DOI is to 1) outline where the legitimate authority of Gov't comes from and 2) put limits on this authority 3) outline conditions where this authority would be deemed "illegitimate". The Gov't is to have no authority (of its own volition) to make law that messes with individual liberty. That is the whole point of putting individual liberty "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't. This authority of Gov't is to come from "We the people/consent of the governed" as opposed to "Divine Right/God" as was the case in the past. The whole point of classical liberalism was to find a justification for the authority of Gov't - other than "GOD" Separation of Church and State was the "modus operandi" of the founders.
