Subforum assumption, Bible authority

[daedalus 2.0]

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

I agree. This subforum allows the believer to skip the sticky, uncomfortable mess of showing the Bible is true and dive right into their doctrine. This forum needs to be this way because Xians need protection from this basic logical process.

Now, when I reference Andrea Yates or Fred Phelps as an example of the dangers of Xianity, the Xian will say: But you can't judge Xianity by the people who don't represent Xianity.

My question is this: If we are assuming the Bible is an authority - whose authority do we use? All we get are a long list of people who DON'T speak for Xianity, but is there anyone who does? Jesus? But he didn't write anything and the Bible's authority is up to interpretation.

Personally, I like Bob Price's or Bishop Shelby Sprong's interpretation.

Whose authority do you accept as the authority on what authority the Bible holds as authority?

[JoeyKnothead]

I'd like some clarity too. My contention is the Bible was written by men, for good or bad, but by men. I respect they may have felt a certain 'religious experience', but I don't think this is anything other than hallucination, etc.

I can understand that the Bible can be used as an authority on what 'God' said, means, etc. But I'm stumped as to if I can argue it is only human, and there is no 'God' behind it, but human hands.

[McCulloch]

My understanding is that this forum is primarily to debate questions around the theme of "What does the Bible really teach about ... ?" or "Which doctrine is the true Christian doctrine, according to Biblical teachings?"

So, of course, this is the proper place to debate which interpretation, which point of view, who's reading is most correct.

[Thought Criminal]

My understanding is that this forum is primarily to debate questions around the theme of "What does the Bible really teach about ... ?" or "Which doctrine is the true Christian doctrine, according to Biblical teachings?"

So, of course, this is the proper place to debate which interpretation, which point of view, who's reading is most correct.

My take on it is that any act of interpretation requires us to understand the context and origins of the text.

For example, I read one argument against the "obvious" interpretation of the Bible to suggest that women must not be allowed to teach men. While I'm not sure if it's true, it did plausibly suggest that the original prohibition was meaningful only in the context of a specific group of women who were the target of the letter, due to the fact that they hadn't yet been indoctrinated thoroughly enough to be trusted with spreading the gospel.

On a deeper level, the origins of the various parts of the Bible -- the who, when, where, and even why -- are all relevant to the question of what the Bible means.

TC

[daedalus 2.0]

Obviously, there are a large number of personalities here but I keep seeing very similar ones:
1. Blindly Ignorant: not knowing any of the history, philosophy, apologetics, people or places that are important to their religion.
2. Self-Imposed Ignorant: THese people know many of the issues but would rather argue everything down to the same level of absurdity of religion. They know papers, opinions or ideas exist outside of their own but they prefer to ignore all of them and focus on their religion (which ever religion it might be, even if it is strictly personal t them).
3. Quoters: People who will add extensive quotes, usually out of context, and then with some commentary that may or may not be on the same topic. Apparently they hope to bludgeon the reader into ennui.
4. Philosopher 101: Tries to use philosophy-like terms to twist well know arguments into something completely different and thus twist it into something that resemble what they believed in the first place.


I have never seen a solid poster use Biblical text effectively, then use science papers, or use other religious texts appropriately to make a larger point.

I have also never seen (on this forum) argue points of Xian theology in an informed manner. Where can I go to read some of those debates? Normally, a true scholar writes his main point, supports it and then adds, himself, the criticisms that may arise. Here is is just constant regurgitation of typical secularized protestant apologetics. "It's all Faith, you have to believe to see it, you have to see it to believe. I just know in my heart!" etc.



Would any Xians like to discuss the controversies within their own Bible? Gal. vs. Acts with Paul, physical vs. spiritual resurrection, was Jesus God, Gods Son or Messiah? What did happen after Jesus died to all of his apostles? Who is in charge of the church? Which books should have been put in the Cannon, which ones left out? Was the voting procedure valid? What parts of the Bible are interpolations, which are probably original?
What did Jesus ACTUALLY say?

Please, Xians, show us how two people of the same religion (but with different beliefs) argue politely and intelligently points in the Bible that are contentious.

[Thought Criminal]

I have also never seen (on this forum) argue points of Xian theology in an informed manner. Where can I go to read some of those debates? Normally, a true scholar writes his main point, supports it and then adds, himself, the criticisms that may arise. Here is is just constant regurgitation of typical secularized protestant apologetics. "It's all Faith, you have to believe to see it, you have to see it to believe. I just know in my heart!" etc.

Would any Xians like to discuss the controversies within their own Bible? Gal. vs. Acts with Paul, physical vs. spiritual resurrection, was Jesus God, Gods Son or Messiah? What did happen after Jesus died to all of his apostles? Who is in charge of the church? Which books should have been put in the Cannon, which ones left out? Was the voting procedure valid? What parts of the Bible are interpolations, which are probably original?
What did Jesus ACTUALLY say?

Please, Xians, show us how two people of the same religion (but with different beliefs) argue politely and intelligently points in the Bible that are contentious.

Uhm, wouldn't this sort of go against the whole idea of keeping up a united front against us evil infidels?

TC

[daedalus 2.0]

I have also never seen (on this forum) argue points of Xian theology in an informed manner. Where can I go to read some of those debates? Normally, a true scholar writes his main point, supports it and then adds, himself, the criticisms that may arise. Here is is just constant regurgitation of typical secularized protestant apologetics. "It's all Faith, you have to believe to see it, you have to see it to believe. I just know in my heart!" etc.

Would any Xians like to discuss the controversies within their own Bible? Gal. vs. Acts with Paul, physical vs. spiritual resurrection, was Jesus God, Gods Son or Messiah? What did happen after Jesus died to all of his apostles? Who is in charge of the church? Which books should have been put in the Cannon, which ones left out? Was the voting procedure valid? What parts of the Bible are interpolations, which are probably original?
What did Jesus ACTUALLY say?

Please, Xians, show us how two people of the same religion (but with different beliefs) argue politely and intelligently points in the Bible that are contentious.

Uhm, wouldn't this sort of go against the whole idea of keeping up a united front against us evil infidels?

TC

Obviously in their heads yes, but oddly this works against them since they form a united front of contradictions. Also, it shows that disingenuousness and hypocrisy is rife in the Xian community since they clearly argue these points against each other - look at the Angelicans alone! - but then when talking to an atheist claim there are no problems.

It reminds me of the abusive father/family. Inside they are beating each other up and living in their own insanity, but outside they tell everyone that there is no problem and even if there was, its none of their business (and then they will try to get people to believe their point of view: I should be able to do whatever I want in my house! You, too, can join our belief that we have no responsibility to the rest of the human culture!"

[Word_Swordsman]

The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.

I agree. This subforum allows the believer to skip the sticky, uncomfortable mess of showing the Bible is true and dive right into their doctrine. This forum needs to be this way because Xians need protection from this basic logical process.

You atheists are way to outnumbered by Christians in the world to deserve large tasks of us. You are the ones claiming false beliefs against the Bible, so why not, like in a court trial, prove the Bible is what you say it is? We stand already testifying about the Bible in the affirmative, so let the prosecutors prove our claims are not admissible. Of course, you must do that over in the Apologetics area, as the Bible is already accepted as not needing defense from us testifiers.

It isn't that Christians need a place of security, protected from disputes about the authority of the Bible. In other threads you consistently deny anything the Bible has to say without ever proving your points. You simply deny our source. That is why I don't find real debate here on any thread. You can't successfully prove anything about religion or the spiritual since you already deny existence of God, so cannot reason in that area about something you have not experienced or comprehend. At least in these sub forums there is a place where whatever a Christian says about the Bible is fair game for disproving of a doctrine based on what the Bible actually says. You have here the unique opportunity to shame a person claiming to represent Christianity with accuracy, or to be shamed yourself, found ignorant of the very book you object to.

Now, when I reference Andrea Yates or Fred Phelps as an example of the dangers of Xianity, the Xian will say: But you can't judge Xianity by the people who don't represent Xianity.[/quote]

I've seen the same argument from atheists disclaiming an atheist who, for instance, exhibits a genre of lawlessness and threatenings. Such a person claiming to be an atheist does so on the basic premise of atheism, but other atheists resent such people representing other atheists or atheism in general. Replace "Christianity" with "librarian" a moment. A larger group of librarians hold a convention where one librarian gives a speech saying reading book text is obsolete, that all books should be destroyed, replaced with audio files. I would think the majority of librarians would be quick to say that one does not represent librarians in general.

My question is this: If we are assuming the Bible is an authority - whose authority do we use? All we get are a long list of people who DON'T speak for Xianity, but is there anyone who does? Jesus? But he didn't write anything and the Bible's authority is up to interpretation.

You are defeating your point with a false logic. Given (correctly) the Bible pages of printed words are said to be authoritative representations of the spoken/inspired words of God to men, then what requires something else to represent that authority? The Bible is self-authoritative with no indication of assignment of that authority to any one man or group. In that case it appears reasonable that comments about the contents of the Bible would have to align literally with the Bible's words, else it's authority has no effect on the user.

Were you a member of the military? There is what is called the UCMJ, spelling out Uncle Sam's expectations of any GI. There is no wiggle room in the regulations to interpret anything than what is specifically stated. You will follow every tenant to the letter or risk courts martial over one fine point. If heathens can comprehend the importance of following every line properly and enjoy a safe passage of tour there, then why suppose Christians should seek alternative interpretations to very plainly written instruction in the Bible? I have noted the atheists are fond of belittling a Christian's use of the Bible here, but you don't set out to prove them wrong except to complain about their comments. I consider arguments with no more substance than "Is not, is not, is not, you are ignorant, ain't so..." to be as juvenile as two 8 year old kids fussing over who's dad is best.

Personally, I like Bob Price's or Bishop Shelby Sprong's interpretation.

Whose authority do you accept as the authority on what authority the Bible holds as authority?

I respect God's authority, the One backing up the words in the Bible. I also appreciate any commenter of the Bible as long as what they say about it is clearly aligned with the Bible's text.

[daedalus 2.0]

You atheists are way to outnumbered by Christians in the world to deserve large tasks of us. You are the ones claiming false beliefs against the Bible, so why not, like in a court trial, prove the Bible is what you say it is?

OK, let's take out the challenges by atheists.

Let's ONLY consider the challenges by Xians. Pick one denomination, we'll add the Catholics, Bishop Shelby Sprong, Fred Phelps, Martin Luther, Thomas Aquinas, and a few other differing views of Xianity - maybe the Messianic Jews and the Mormons, and one of the MANY Xian religions that deny that Jesus was real, but that it is a metaphor - that the Bible is mostly metaphor and not historical.

Now, who is right?

None of them are atheists so your argument seems to crumble before you even begin.

[Word_Swordsman]

I'd like some clarity too. My contention is the Bible was written by men, for good or bad, but by men. I respect they may have felt a certain 'religious experience', but I don't think this is anything other than hallucination, etc.

I can understand that the Bible can be used as an authority on what 'God' said, means, etc. But I'm stumped as to if I can argue it is only human, and there is no 'God' behind it, but human hands.

I agree you always appear to be "stumped" concerning the Bible, and you know my take on why that is happening to you.

Except for the original stone tablets God wrote for Moses (Ex 31:18; 32:15-16), the replacement set was hewn of stone, carried by him alone up the mountain, and inscribed by the hand of Moses after breaking the originals (Ex 34:28), subsequent writings on various media materials began with Moses (Ex 17:14) and continued as men continued to be inspired by God to write down what they received from Him.

Saying the inspiration of the Bible was mere hallucination defies the rule of this sub forum. It appears to me you are out of control concerning civility and honor of rules. Are you representative of atheism and atheists in general?

Using the Bible as a source not needing defense here (which it doesn't need anywhere), the Bible is self-declarative concerning inspiration from God to men to write His words in Job 32:8 "But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding." and in 2 Tim. 3:16 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

The Jews received the word of God according to Jesus, by voice to Moses (desert thunder noise to the nation below), dreams, visions, and by prophetic utterances.

John 10:33-35 "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. [34] Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? [35] If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;"

It never did get broken, and never will be.