| Subject: Futilty |
Author:
Brian
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 05/21/02 7:16pm
In reply to:
QUITTNER
's message, "Maybe all are just speculations?" on 05/21/02 2:26pm
>>So? Are these authors in agreement on the ORIGINAL
>>idea? Do they have access to documents not available
>>to us? Unless they provide a clear case for what the
>>original idea was, how do you know, among the
>>competing religions, which best retains the original
>>idea?<<<
>..... Brian, read books, including many that are NOT
>part of the bible, and judge for yourself.
My mistake. I had thought that you had a rational reason backing your position. The reason seems to be: "Check it out yourself." Thank you, I have long since done that, along with tens of thousand of other people who have differing ideas. I (and they) already have many books that are not part of the Bible (in my case, the apocryphal writings, the "scriptures" claimed by the Mormons, supposedly authoritative writings from the founders of several branches of Christianity - Mary Baker Eddy, Russell, even the Scientologists - plus writings by authorities on the ancient manuscripts such as Kenyon, Adams, Metzger, the ancient fathers and scholars - such as Josephus). What is it that I have missed?
>>What are you referring to by "what I have written"?
>>And for what you have written to be closer, please
>>explain - closer than what? And what is the standard
>>you are using to determine that you are closer?<<<
>..... what I have written/posted is probably closer to
>what really happened before the crucifixion of Jesus
>than what is generally believed, and what is based
>only on the books of the bible. What standard are
>believers in the truth of the bible's books applying?
>I think my standard is "better" because I have read
>also many books that are NOT a part of the bible.
Since I must have missed it, could you please summarize these things you allude to that "happened before the crucifixion of Jesus" that you have the more correct understanding of. Very seriously, I do not know have any real understanding of what things or facts about the period prior to the crucifixion that you are talking about.
>>You have a hard time being definite in your ideas.
>>"more likely" … very probably". And make your
>>responses specific to the question, not some
>>pie-in-the-sky generality that can be applied to
>>everything from Swiss cheese to modern poetry. Your
>>original claim, unambiguously stated, was that if it
>>was true that God inspired the authors of the Bible,
>>then He has continued communicating with people since,
>>and we must be heedful of these messages. Can you
>>support the conclusion you say follows from the
>>premise?<<<
>..... Ask God!
I take it your participation on this board is to offer many general platitudes, but never to back up thing up with specifics. When asked a specific question - toss it off to "God".
>>But is it not sufficient to assimilate the message
>>that God put in the Bible? If we need something that
>>did not make it into the Bible, how about those who
>>had only the Bible before the new message was
>>delivered?
>..... No, it isn't. Clergy cannot limit God, requiring
>God to shut up because the clergy have their
>copyrighted "holy" writings that they don't want God
>ever to revise or even declare to be obsolete, even
>wrong and superseded.
But many Christians maintain that God himself made sure the Bible was complete and sufficient. The clergy would not need to tell God to shut up, if He had already fully delivered His message. And, you failed to answer the part of my question about those people who lived before any post-biblical revelations were given. They are denied the knowledge that these revelations brought.
>>Beautiful dodge. The Mormons claim to be led by a
>>prophet who has the same rights and powers that the
>>prophets of old did. Since this sounds pretty clearly
>>like being in communication with God, the Book of
>>Mormon must be part of the new communication that we
>>must heed, right?
>..... No, members of an association are supposed to
>adhere to their own principles, and their own clergy
>is also required to adhere to them. Those who call
>themselves "Christians" are required to adhere to what
>Jesus wanted, not to what was added later from outside
>sources.
Adhering to what Jesus wanted is exactly what the Mormons (and many other denominations) say they are doing. Also, you ramble about allowing God to continue giving information to man after the bible came into existence. The "new scriptures" are explicitly claimed to fit that condition, additional information from God that supplements the bible. Why do you choose to classify them as coming from "outside sources". What differentiates an outside source from something from God?
>>You are the one who phrased it in an unambiguous
>>logical form. Now are you implying that what you said
>>was not true?
>>..... Ask God whether it is/was true.
I will probably have to. I think you are incapable of a rational defensible answer.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 