# Reading > Religious Texts >  Why does the Bible End?

## Kebi

I have recently been thinking more deeply about my Christia faith, because, (as my dad put it) I want to explore my spiritual side or something to that effect. So i was just wondering, why dies the bible stop? Why didnt people carry on writing it into this day? I would really like it if someone could tell me the answer.  :Smile:

----------


## audnchad

What a fantastic question! Made me scratch my head and wonder, but finally I came up with the very simple answer of Why wouldn't it? I cannot think of a single situation that the Bible does not address. It may not provide the direct or easy answer we're looking for, but it will have something to say!
Other than that, I don't know. Obviously you've been thinking about this as well- Any thoughts to add?

----------


## kilted exile

I think the main question is who would continue the writings? If it was for example the pope, it would not be accepted by the protestant sects and vice-versa

----------


## Virgil

What a fantastic question. Old Testament ranged from about 1200 BC to 100 BC with some substantial gaps of time in between some books. New Testament was all in the first century AD, all within a thirty year time span. There is probably a different answer to that question for the Old and New Tastaments. I have some thoughts, but I don't feel comfortable enough to put them out.

----------


## Whifflingpin

The writing has never stopped.

However, at a certain point in time, a church council simply decided that a certain set of writings contained sufficient error free material that nothing else was necessary to do whatever it is that the Bible does.

----------


## brainstrain

Well, one belief is that at a certain point people stopped being directly affected by God (as in the clouds would part, trumpets would blow, an echoing voice would resonate around you). Now, many religions have arisen the in past few centuries which followers of this philosophy would not accept. 

Since almost the entire bible was written by people who had direct contact with either God or Jesus, and according to this philosophy that has stopped, anything else added to the bible would not be from God, thus defeating the point of the Bible (a book which is not tainted by man. It is, as it's creator, as perfect as our limited language can convey).

----------


## subterranean

I'm thinking whether it's because the messages, that need to be conveyed to man, have been completed, that God had stated all that man need to know or what are neccesary for man to know. How the world started and how is it going to end, as well as relationships between God and man, man towards each other, and man towards the world/environment in general. And even though it sometimes doesn't give direct or clear statement to all problems of humanity, there's always a passage or more to be referenced and use as basis to answer all the questions.

----------


## Orionsbelt

It has not ended and it must always continue but most of the religious institutions don't recognize it.


absolutely wonderful question.

----------


## mtpspur

I believe that there are many reasons the Bible stops at Revelation. The simplest reason (to me) is that the Lord Christ had gone to heaven and the last apostle (John) was closing the records out for the generations to come to read and ponder and hopefully pray over. The Lord is in his heaven and we all await His return at the appointed time.

The backbone of my belief is that God does what He chooses and probably laughs at the idea of a council weighing in on the page count.  :FRlol:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I'm thinking whether it's because the messages, that need to be conveyed to man, have been completed, that God had stated all that man need to know or what are neccesary for man to know. How the world started and how is it going to end, as well as relationships between God and man, man towards each other, and man towards the world/environment in general. And even though it sometimes doesn't give direct or clear statement to all problems of humanity, there's always a passage or more to be referenced and use as basis to answer all the questions.



This is the correct answer. People still write things in an attempt to understand God, but that's different from the narrative designed _by_ God to reveal Himself to his people. I think the Bible is meant to present a unified picture of God - one that shows the end and the beginning, because the story we are involved in has a beginning and an end. Part of the Christian's hope lies in the fact that the great narrative of God's love for us has a happy ending -the Good Guys win in the end.

----------


## Scheherazade

As the old saying goes, 'All good things must come to an end.'

----------


## Kebi

thanks for all the answers, guys. It has really helped, i wasnt expecting this many replies! I've kind of come to the conclusion that what subterranean and Redzepplin say must be mostly te answer but there are many different reasons, such as there are no more apostles (as far as i know) to actually write it. Thank you soo much everyone!

----------


## Pendragon

I'm with Sub and Red on this, that everything was revealed that would be necessary to let us know about God. One thing I would add is, perhaps man stopped listening. When we pray we always have a one sided conversation. Why? Does God change like the wind? I don't believe that. Maybe we don't listen, for fear of being thought insane. I mean, if you tell people you talk to God, you are religious, and it will be OK with most people. But if a person says that God has talked to _them_, people take a much different view. So we just pray.

----------


## Madhuri

The religious books focus on eternal issues, they were never bent on serving the humans materialistic needs. The soul or the meaning of it has remained the same ever since, and that is why the teachings of books written long back are so relevant today as well.

----------


## ennison

Commentary on The Bible has been continuous. There is a specific command in Revelations that nothing else must be added TO it but of course not only are there commentaries but human beings have been writing hymns, accounts of conversions, meditations and sermons since ..... well since they could write I guess

----------


## Redzeppelin

I suppose a related idea would be the finite nature of the Bible and the complications created by its finite-ness. Non-believers will attack the Bible because its account of Creation is non-scientific, that Jesus didn't address all of the soical evils of his day (or ours!) that so many "holes" were left in terms of interpretation. The Bible ends because it needs to be a self-contained "system" that does not change with future "revisions." It must end because all that is part of our human history will end. Which brings up the interesting idea: will the Bible exist in heaven? Or will its relevance to our lives disappear in the light of God Himself? Will we even remember what it said?

----------


## ennison

'will the Bible exist in heaven?'

No

----------


## Robert Jordan

It ends where it should end. A new tree of life is planted on the Erath, The Tree of David. All of God's glory and grace has come to fruition after a long and ardous battle. Salvation is born. The Earth is built anew and we all get to sit under the shade of the tree and be amongst its branches. At least that's what I get out of it. After all Jesus does say in John 15:5: I am the vine, you are the branches.
Too me Revelations ends with Christs message of salvation being fulfilled.

----------


## hyperborean

It ends because it's a book. It's a book of parables with life lessons we should all look into. The stories themselves are not historical fact and they shouldn't be taken literally.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It ends because it's a book. It's a book of parables with life lessons we should all look into. The stories themselves are not historical fact and they shouldn't be taken literally.


According to whom?

----------


## brucehopson2000

Coming from someone who was once Atheist.

----------


## DahliaBlood

The bible ended because like all books that have ended it was written by MAN. It did not fall from the sky.

----------


## Wintermute

> Which brings up the interesting idea: will the Bible exist in heaven? Or will its relevance to our lives disappear in the light of God Himself? Will we even remember what it said?


Greetings Red,

Good question. So do you think it is possible to read in heaven? This is one thing that seems to vary from person to person--their personal vision of heaven. My grandmother pictured green vales with pretty houses, blue skies, fluffy clouds, children playing, dogs barking...etc. My Uncle Herb, a minister, describes it only as a feeling of overwhelming joy. Maybe our heaven is constructed according to our personal desires?

Are there any specifics in the Bible that describe heaven and what one can expect there? For example, do we exist as individuals? Can we remember our time on earth? Will we still love our pets? Can we 'see' what's going on on the planet earth or other planets? Do we eat? Drink? Orgasm? Do we experience any of our earthly/bodily pleasures in heaven? Do we experience time in heaven--will ten trillion years seem like ten trillion years?

What do you think heaven will be like Red? If you are able to be specific it would be most helpful.

----------


## billyjack

> It ends because it's a book. It's a book of parables with life lessons we should all look into. The stories themselves are not historical fact and they shouldn't be taken literally.


yes. there is no ending in reality, only in books. reason being, there was never a beginning, its always been. beginnings happen in stories. like a snake eating its own tail, existence goes round and round. for example, there isnt a beginning point of a circle, nor an end point. any attempt to find this point and say "this is the beginning or this is the end" would be a random, unfounded choice. 

maybe the bibles ends as a metaphor to remind us that we cannot grasp everything with words. or maybe it ends because no book can deal with everything and our faith needs to be tested by dealing with unknowns.

in the words of allan watts.
"And the attitude of faith is the very opposite of clinging to belief, of holding on.
"But the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be."

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Greetings Red,
> 
> Are there any specifics in the Bible that describe heaven and what one can expect there? For example, do we exist as individuals? Can we remember our time on earth? Will we still love our pets? Can we 'see' what's going on on the planet earth or other planets? Do we eat? Drink? Orgasm? Do we experience any of our earthly/bodily pleasures in heaven? Do we experience time in heaven--will ten trillion years seem like ten trillion years?
> 
> What do you think heaven will be like Red? If you are able to be specific it would be most helpful.


The Bible is woefully inadequate in its description of heaven. C.S. Lewis was fond of stating that God is _ultimate reality_ - that there is nothing more real than He. I think heaven will reflect that ultimate reality nature of God - that we will become the people God designed us (including you, my friend) to be. We'll have new bodies - ones that won't grow old, or tired, or sick anymore; we'll recieve a new name - the one God picked out for each and everyone of us before birth; we will have eternity to explore the cosmos, to talk to people who lived throughout history; we will know everybody with an intimacy that few people on earth are ever able to approach - to love and be loved, to know and be known at a depth of vulnerability that is probably unknown on earth and only occasionally approached by old married couples that are still completely in love; we will live without suffering, without tragedy, without loss, without fear forever; we will be able to have access to the Creator of the universe and live in His light; we will be able to swim, and laugh, sing, run, fly, dive - you name it. Will sex be there? I don't know - but I would say that sex without intimacy is a fairly empty thing - so that if we now have the deepest of intimacy with others, could sex compare? (Personally, I'd like it if sex were in heaven, but I'm old enough to know that heart-to-heart intimacy is rarer and often more satisfying). I've barely scratched the surface. If we can enjoy life down here on an earth that we and sin have stripped bare, shouldn't heaven contain the true components of what down here are merely shadows? C.S. Lewis tells us that that longing that we feel here in the presence of indescribable beauty or love - he says those brief moments are merely flickers of what eternity with God will be like.

No paragraph can picture heaven properly, and I'm embarrassed to have tried, but you asked, my friend, and I didn't want to leave you hanging.

----------


## hyperborean

Sounds like Christians make some of this stuff up as they go along. :Yawnb:  

No one knows anything about what goes on in heaven because it's imagined. Christians will continue to imagine things until they feel secure about death.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Sounds like Christians make some of this stuff up as they go along. 
> 
> No one knows anything about what goes on in heaven because it's imagined. Christians will continue to imagine things until they feel secure about death.



Was this supposed to be of value? If so, how? If not, why?

----------


## JGL57

> ...in the words of allan watts.
> "And the attitude of faith is the very opposite of clinging to belief, of holding on.
> "But the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be."


Watts was an ex-Anglican priest. Fundamentalists should avoid Watts like the plague, since he explains, in no uncertain terms, exactly why their most cherished beliefs (wishes) are based on taking symbol and myth as literal and historical - the ultimate existential ignorance.

Watts' words that you quote are exactly to the point. I can only add Watts' further explanation that "belief" is from the Anglo-Saxon word "lief", meaning "wish" or "hope", whereas "faith" is from (the Latin?) meaning "trust". 

So, taking the words in their original sense one must have faith or trust in ultimate reality, no matter what it may be, and let go of (quit clinging to) the beliefs or wishes derived from various ideologies (both religious and secular) that are based on nothing more than clinging to one of competing human authorities (both religious and secular) that are based, ultimately, on nothing more substantial than say so - as opposed to the experiential reality of the individual. Or something like that.  :Wink:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Watts was an ex-Anglican priest. Fundamentalists should avoid Watts like the plague, since he explains, in no uncertain terms, exactly why their most cherished beliefs (wishes) are based on taking symbol and myth as literal and historical - the ultimate existential ignorance.



Watts should be avoided for the simple reason that he's _wrong_. The only real _existential arrogance_ that I can see is the idea that _we_ are the measure of reality - that our stunted capabilities and limited perspectives could ever be mistaken for having the ability to unravel the complexities of life, existence and the universe. That is the true absurdity.

----------


## Zirkle2007

From my studies I get the understanding that what we the church believe to be the bible, is God inspired. What that basically means is that God used man to write what he wanted to say. There is an official name for it, but I can't remember it at this time. There are many more books to the bible, but what we have as the 'official' bible has been chosen by the church. In my belief though, the Bible ends just like any other story, if you notice, the last book is about the end of time...whats after that? I know that we will have life in heaven after the end, but this is also in Revelations...so what else is really needed?

----------


## billyjack

> Watts should be avoided for the simple reason that he's _wrong_. The only real _existential arrogance_ that I can see is the idea that _we_ are the measure of reality - that our stunted capabilities and limited perspectives could ever be mistaken for having the ability to unravel the complexities of life, existence and the universe. That is the true absurdity.


to quote watts (scholar of all world religions), "All ideas about the world, whether they be religious, philosophical, or scientific, are translations of the physical world and of worlds beyond the physical into the terms and shapes of the human mind. There is no such thing as a nonanthropomorphic idea."

----------


## Redzeppelin

> to quote watts (scholar of all world religions), "All ideas about the world, whether they be religious, philosophical, or scientific, are translations of the physical world and of worlds beyond the physical into the terms and shapes of the human mind. There is no such thing as a nonanthropomorphic idea."


Mr. Watts has an _opinion_. Not everybody agrees with his _opinion_.

----------


## billyjack

> Mr. Watts has an _opinion_. Not everybody agrees with his _opinion_.


show me a view that is non-anthropomorphic. keep watts' definition in mind when you do so. i think it will be tricky.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> show me a view that is non-anthropomorphic. keep watts' definition in mind when you do so. i think it will be tricky.



I didn't necessarily say he was wrong.

----------


## billyjack

> I didn't necessarily say he was wrong.


okay dokay. but you're not saying he's right either. you're saying he has an opinion and that opinion, although it goes against what you believe, is a tough one to refute. no hurry. . .

----------


## ennison

Well I've eaten my dinner. I'm full. should I EXPECT MORE?

----------


## wrestle-135

The correct answer is we are living the rest of the bible right now. In the book of acts it tells about the new testament church. We are the new testament church. In the book of revelations God shows visions of what will happen in the end time. If you study the book of revelations it details what will happen between the beginning of the new testament church until God deceids to come back. For example in the book of revelations it states that there will be a one world currency before the day of the Lord Comes. Our world right now is creeping towards a one world currency. We are the End of the Bible. we are living it right now.

----------


## hyperborean

If there is one book in the bible that I can't stand it has to be revelations. That whole apocalypse prediction is just demeaning for mankind.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

It ends mostly because the chapters after Revelations would be kinda boring.

----------


## billyjack

> If there is one book in the bible that I can't stand it has to be revelations. That whole apocalypse prediction is just demeaning for mankind.


agreed. a teacher of mine boldly, and possibly rightly, claims that revelations is just a retelling of the fall of Rome. Revelations is more of a reminder not to do what the romans did than it is a prediction of the end of days. making her case even stronger is that end of days tales seem to be a universal phenomenon. for instance, american indians of the northern tribes have a coyote myth that speaks of an end of days. the amerindian end of days tale is strikingly similar to the fall of the mississippian tribe.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If there is one book in the bible that I can't stand it has to be revelations. That whole apocalypse prediction is just demeaning for mankind.


Oh, see that's where you're wrong! Revelation is the best part because the good guys win! That's good stuff. A few thousand years before the advent of movies and God still tells an exciting story with a slam-bang ending. Whoo-hoo - won't that be cool to see?

----------


## Robert Jordan

what's funny to is that every age always thinks it is living in the Age od the Apocalypse. If you read a book by Dostoevsky called the Idiot there is a character who is convinced that the end times are near due to the shaping of the Russian railway system. Why is everyone so afraid and yet so anxious for the end?

----------


## ennison

'what's funny to is that every age always thinks it is living in the Age od the Apocalypse.'
Yes I find that funny too but in terms of God's time these eras are the same... blinks of an eye.

----------


## HannibalBarca

The end of the bible is the end of the earth.

----------


## chaplin

> So i was just wondering, why dies the bible stop? Why didnt people carry on writing it into this day? I would really like it if someone could tell me the answer.


The modern Christian churches believe that the conclusion of the Bible was the conclusion of revelation from God, which is required to add to or supplement canonized scripture. Thus, nobody continued the Bible, because no one had the authority or the connection with God to produce sacred scripture.

Churches like the Mormons believe that the Bible's "end", was not an end to all revelation or scripture, but an end to that particular book. And the Book of Mormon is the modern-day continuation of revelation from God, and in a way, a continuation of the Bible, since all of God's word is the same. Catholics and really every other Christian sect firmly asserts that all modern revelation is _false_ revelation, and thus nothing can be added to or even be set parallel to it.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Oh, see that's where you're wrong! Revelation is the best part because the good guys win! That's good stuff. A few thousand years before the advent of movies and God still tells an exciting story with a slam-bang ending. Whoo-hoo - won't that be cool to see?


The 'good guys', of course, being the good Christians. Everybody else rots in hell for all eternity.




Wheee, ha ha ha.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The 'good guys', of course, being the good Christians. Everybody else rots in hell for all eternity.
> 
> Wheee, ha ha ha.


No - you would be incorrect, good sir. The "good guys" are God, Christ, the Holy Spirit and the angels who are unfallen; we here on earth are _rescued_ and _vindicated_ - but we don't "win" because we never had the power to beat the bad guys except through the strength given us by God.

Those who go to hell will know that they clearly chose that fate. In the end, when God reveals all, there will be no question - from either believer or non - that His judgment is completely just.

----------


## ennison

'Those who go to hell will know that they clearly chose that fate. In the end, when God reveals all, there will be no question - from either believer or non - that His judgment is completely just.'
I believe at least half of that but right this minute I'm unsure which half.

----------


## hyperborean

> Those who go to hell will know that they clearly chose that fate. In the end, when God reveals all, there will be no question - from either believer or non - that His judgment is completely just.


So now you believe in hell as well...nice. I'm glad the christian propaganda has clouded your mind.

----------


## billyjack

> In the end, when God reveals all, there will be no question - from either believer or non - that His judgment is completely just.


its always "in the end" for theism. the problem with appeals to the future to legitamize an argument lies in the inherent cyclical nature of this way of thinking. once the future is realized, there will just be another future to strive after. you appeal to "the past tense for reward in the future tense, while repressing the tense of life--the present" (norman brown). this progressive fallacy refuses to be swolled by theist because their future lurks in the unknowable, their death. this roos is clever in that it veils its false premises with a conclusion that can never be known in this world. 

ps--i'm awaiting a non-anthropomorphic idea.

----------


## JGL57

> ...ps--i'm awaiting a non-anthropomorphic idea.


From a bible-thumping christian? Your wait will last until the day you die.  :Wink:

----------


## cows

Here is the real answer. 

I'm writing the rest.

----------


## Morrisonhotel

Excellent question. Such a difficult one to answer as well! Obvious answers seem to be changes in intellectual thought (i.e. what would have happened during the time of Darwin, and so forth - would the bible address it, etc. (and explain the difficulties in regards to a fundamentalist reading of the bible)?). The sacred nature of the text means it would probably be a very difficult one to approach to write - could you imagine, say, Dickens whacking in his own addition to the text? It would seem bizarre. It would also make it even more disjointed as a text - and quite possibly disjointed as a place to gleam morals and lessons from (after all times are constantly changing, and all that). 

Would the additions survive the spreading of agnosticism and atheism through the last 200 years, though?

Excellent question but so difficult to answer.

----------


## Vittoria666

Well here is a head scratcher!!! lol. umm i think that no one continued it to this day because of the warning in the end of the book of revalations...saying that somthing bad will happen to those who add things to the book..i dont quite know but this is a very good question...try asking a clergy member of yours or a preist in a church near you, if you go to church for confessions.
i know that i am gonna try that.... take care and god bless.

----------


## Niamh

Thats a very good question. Only it appears that i maybe one of the only catholics here thats doesnt see it as anything any more and that the reason why it ends is because its fiction(old- with some history regarding isrealites and Egypt) and that the New is merely a biography of the life of a man devoted to preaching the word of god and was persecuted. There are too many things that i believe that the bible tells me i shouldnt. There are certain things in the bible that to me are unrealistic. many of the stories in the Old were probably originally orally told through generations before it was written down and things may have been exagerated.
Sorry guys! Just my opinion! (dont hate me!)

----------


## weepingforloman

> From a bible-thumping christian? Your wait will last until the day you die.


Nice to know we can carry on an intelligent conversation without reverting to stereotyping and (bad) attempts at humor.
Seriously though, the problem some people have in grasping the goodness of judgment is that they don't really realize they've done anything wrong-- or if they do, they think it's not so bad. We've definitely had lowering moral expectations since Freud. Mostly, it's because people took his statements about "repression" and seemed to think it meant that people should always follow their impulses, because it is somehow "unhealthy" not to. Just as an aside, some people tend to forget that Freud snorted coke  :Biggrin:  . Just a thought. 
Besides that, let me just say that it's not as though Christians want people to go to hell... We just happen to see a little more clearly than most that humanity is deeply, deeply flawed. As C.S. Lewis puts it in Mere Christianity, (paraphrase) when you are most honest with yourself, you realize that you have done terrible things, and, if you know that there is a God, you also know that He cannot be good unless he actually hates terrible things. Additionally, there are other theories (not that I subscribe to them- I'm a thorough Calvinist, and we don't hold for that) about hell that include the idea that souls in hell are "victorious"- they have managed to avoid the voluntary self-surrender inherent in accepting the grace of God. So, if that sounds appealing to you, enjoy it!

----------


## weepingforloman

> Thats a very good question. Only it appears that i maybe one of the only catholics here thats doesnt see it as anything any more and that the reason why it ends is because its fiction(old- with some history regarding isrealites and Egypt) and that the New is merely a biography of the life of a man devoted to preaching the word of god and was persecuted. There are too many things that i believe that the bible tells me i shouldnt. There are certain things in the bible that to me are unrealistic. many of the stories in the Old were probably originally orally told through generations before it was written down and things may have been exagerated.
> Sorry guys! Just my opinion! (dont hate me!)


Umm... I'm not gonna pick this apart, but you may be forgetting something: when modern westerners have oral traditions, we don't make it a practice to memorize the exact wording. But that was a practiced art among most of the eastern or quasi-eastern cultures. Consider for a minute that Homer lived during the "dark" period of Greek history, when literacy was lost--and that today we have an epic poem over six hundred pages in length. The Israelites would have made sure that no word was changed. And, just so we're clear, I think that this, more than any other area of dispute is where the Protestants differ from the Catholics: we base everything we believe on the Word. Say what you want, but we have faith.

----------


## Niamh

> Umm... I'm not gonna pick this apart, but you may be forgetting something: when modern westerners have oral traditions, we don't make it a practice to memorize the exact wording. But that was a practiced art among most of the eastern or quasi-eastern cultures. Consider for a minute that Homer lived during the "dark" period of Greek history, when literacy was lost--and that today we have an epic poem over six hundred pages in length. The Israelites would have made sure that no word was changed. And, just so we're clear, I think that this, more than any other area of dispute is where the Protestants differ from the Catholics: we base everything we believe on the Word. Say what you want, but we have faith.


I was refaring to stories like the pillar of salt, not the exodus as that is actually written in hirogliphs on many of the ramses temples in egypt. Hence why i classed that as 'history' in my original post.it is not possible to get turned into a pillar of salt. This is where an obvious 'chinese whisper' effect has happen because the story was orally passed from generation to generation. (You also have to realise that i'm not just on about Adults but also children and children do like to exaggerate things to make them exciting.) It is more likely that they had a heart attack at seeing their home being distroyed than being turned into a pillar of salt because they looked back. Do you see might point?

----------


## Niamh

> And, just so we're clear, I think that this, more than any other area of dispute is where the Protestants differ from the Catholics: we base everything we believe on the Word. Say what you want, but we have faith.


Personally i dont think its right to assume one faith is better than the other. We are all here to respect each others beliefs, and put forward our own opinions about particular topics. And also i was not expressing the opinion of catholics in general, only my own beliefs as some one who nolongers practices catholicism but was baptisted as one. That is why is said 


> just my opinion!


.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Personally i dont think its right to assume one faith is better than the other. We are all here to respect each others beliefs, and put forward our own opinions about particular topics. And also i was not expressing the opinion of catholics in general, only my own beliefs as some one who nolongers practices catholicism but was baptisted as one. That is why is said .


Well, we kind of have to decide on one faith or another (even agnosticism has a faith of sorts). Plus, we can't really believe that no one faith is at least a little bit closer to the truth than another. The problem is that so many people don't think spirituality has anything to do with reality, so they can think that everything is right. If you said that 1+1 could have any answer you wanted it to be (without involving any abstract thought/philosophy, no one mention that math is arbitrary, and that systems of measurement mean nothing), people would just laugh, right? The problem is, people don't categorize spirituality as something that actually has reality.

----------


## Niamh

> Well, we kind of have to decide on one faith or another (even agnosticism has a faith of sorts). Plus, we can't really believe that no one faith is at least a little bit closer to the truth than another. The problem is that so many people don't think spirituality has anything to do with reality, so they can think that everything is right. If you said that 1+1 could have any answer you wanted it to be (without involving any abstract thought/philosophy, no one mention that math is arbitrary, and that systems of measurement mean nothing), people would just laugh, right? The problem is, people don't categorize spirituality as something that actually has reality.


But Spirituality is also a religion not linked to christianity. It is a part of the old beliefs, where the spirits of our ansestors walk side by side with us in this world, as spirit form or as the energy that makes the world go round. The spiritualist church is what psychic and spiritualist Mediums belong to. It is a revival of old pagan belief system where what you worship is what you see. As in the earth and the sky and the people around you.

----------


## weepingforloman

I meant spirituality as in "involving the spirit," not in reference to a specific code of belief. I used the lower-case "s" intentionally. I was not even aware of the existence of the Spiritualist Church.

----------


## Niamh

I knew what you meant! :Smile:  I was only pointing out that there was also a spiritualist church.

----------


## weepingforloman

Okay, sorry.

----------


## Niamh

Dont worry about it.

----------


## ennison

'So now you believe in hell as well'
Certainly we do. It's also certain that many who claim not to believe in The Creator do so because they first ditched a belief in Satan and Hell. Satan has been doing that to us since The Fall.

----------


## hyperborean

oh no the devil is gunna get me! it's called fear...a tool used by the powerful.

----------


## ennison

Aint gunna 'lready gut

----------


## Shalot

> Nice to know we can carry on an intelligent conversation without reverting to stereotyping and (bad) attempts at humor.
> Seriously though, the problem some people have in grasping the goodness of judgment is that they don't really realize they've done anything wrong-- or if they do, they think it's not so bad. We've definitely had lowering moral expectations since Freud. Mostly, it's because people took his statements about "repression" and seemed to think it meant that people should always follow their impulses, because it is somehow "unhealthy" not to. Just as an aside, some people tend to forget that Freud snorted coke  . Just a thought. 
> Besides that, let me just say that it's not as though Christians want people to go to hell... We just happen to see a little more clearly than most that humanity is deeply, deeply flawed. As C.S. Lewis puts it in Mere Christianity, (paraphrase) when you are most honest with yourself, you realize that you have done terrible things, and, if you know that there is a God, you also know that He cannot be good unless he actually hates terrible things. Additionally, there are other theories (not that I subscribe to them- I'm a thorough Calvinist, and we don't hold for that) about hell that include the idea that souls in hell are "victorious"- they have managed to avoid the voluntary self-surrender inherent in accepting the grace of God. So, if that sounds appealing to you, enjoy it!



 :Sick:

----------


## Vittoria666

> Thats a very good question. Only it appears that i maybe one of the only catholics here thats doesnt see it as anything any more and that the reason why it ends is because its fiction(old- with some history regarding isrealites and Egypt) and that the New is merely a biography of the life of a man devoted to preaching the word of god and was persecuted. There are too many things that i believe that the bible tells me i shouldnt. There are certain things in the bible that to me are unrealistic. many of the stories in the Old were probably originally orally told through generations before it was written down and things may have been exagerated.
> Sorry guys! Just my opinion! (dont hate me!)


 i wouldnt say that the bible is fiction because they do have proof against that.... but you are right about where most of the events take place... it seems unrealistic but i beleive it what do others think?

----------


## weepingforloman

> i wouldnt say that the bible is fiction because they do have proof against that.... but you are right about where most of the events take place... it seems unrealistic but i beleive it what do others think?


I would say it seems unrealistic that by some trillionth chance the right bodies of matter collided and produced the physical universe, and by a billionth chance the right chemicals formed the sun, thereby pulling the solar system into place, and by some billionth of a billionth chance the right climate, chemicals, and conditions existed on one planet, and somehow (inexplicably) this thing we call "life" (we don't know what actually animates matter) really did appear, and that by some millionth chance the first organism survived long enough to reproduce, and that organism by a trillionth-trillionth chance genetically mutated and still managed to survive, and so on. Realistically, can an organism even survive significant mutation? 

I think it is unrealistic that this creature called Man evolved from the basest of beings: a.) morality/conciousness-where'd it come from? What's the gene for moral conduct? b.) that the many parts of man's physical were evolved (unless an organism got all the parts of the eye right on one shot-retina, cornea, iris, pupil, rods, cones, etc., it wouldn't work) c). that an organism with all these attributes somehow found one with the same attributes, they mated and thrived and d.) that mankind, if a merely evolutive anomaly, managed to survive with so few natural, physical gifts and talents.

What is unrealistic now?

----------


## Niamh

> I would say it seems unrealistic that by some trillionth chance the right bodies of matter collided and produced the physical universe, and by a billionth chance the right chemicals formed the sun, thereby pulling the solar system into place, and by some billionth of a billionth chance the right climate, chemicals, and conditions existed on one planet, and somehow (inexplicably) this thing we call "life" (we don't know what actually animates matter) really did appear, and that by some millionth chance the first organism survived long enough to reproduce, and that organism by a trillionth-trillionth chance genetically mutated and still managed to survive, and so on. Realistically, can an organism even survive significant mutation? 
> 
> I think it is unrealistic that this creature called Man evolved from the basest of beings: a.) morality/conciousness-where'd it come from? What's the gene for moral conduct? b.) that the many parts of man's physical were evolved (unless an organism got all the parts of the eye right on one shot-retina, cornea, iris, pupil, rods, cones, etc., it wouldn't work) c). that an organism with all these attributes somehow found one with the same attributes, they mated and thrived and d.) that mankind, if a merely evolutive anomaly, managed to survive with so few natural, physical gifts and talents.
> 
> What is unrealistic now?


So in other words where i think the biblical big bang theory of seven days is a load of coswollop, you think the same of Geological and scientific eveidance and theory? Well i suppose thats what make us humans so universally different. Our minds mean that we have different ways of interpreting and believing things especially thos that we are made to believe growing up.

But back to Vittorias Q. There is historical and Archaeological evidence that some events in the bible did happen, isn't it still possible that some of the stories in the bible are in fact just Stories? Could that be why it ends? Or could the bibles purpose have originally been like that of a annal?
The reason why i ask the Annals question is that one of Irelands most important historical document is the Annals of Ireland which contains much of the early history of ireland, included the Viking raids and clan wars, but it also includes stories based on Irish mythology. These stories have druids and sorcery, giants and heros, people being turned into trees because of a gods curse etc. The fiction and the non fiction are mixed. So could this be the same with the bible?(the annals also end. And they were documented by monks and Abbotts)

----------


## weepingforloman

The actual theological reason for the Bible's ending is that the canon is complete. It is believed that there was a period during which the Spirit actively inspired (different meaning than normal) writers. This period lasted very shortly after the Resurrection, in part because Christ Himself is called the Word of God and is the living communication of what God desires humanity to be. And, yes, Niamh, not all of the Bible is meant to be taken in word-for-word literal fashion. But that does not mean it is necessarily all fiction.

----------


## Niamh

> And, yes, Niamh, not all of the Bible is meant to be taken in word-for-word literal fashion. But that does not mean it is necessarily all fiction.


And that is why i said mixing history with fiction in one book. That is also why i am querying whether or not there is a possiblity that the bible is an Annal.

----------


## weepingforloman

The parts that are intended to be fictive (in some way or another) are Revelations, the poetical sections of Genesis and other places in the OT, and various prophecies that are not meant to be taken literally (for instance, God has never "weighed the islands like grains of sand"). That does not make the Bible an annal, but rather a mixture of literature. It includes songs (Song of Songs, Psalms), prophecy (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc.), history (Exodus, Kings, Chronicles, Judges, the Gospels), sermons (Hebrews, many of the Epistles) and apocalyptic literature (Revelation, sections of Daniel).

----------


## Niamh

never mind.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> We'll have new bodies - ones that won't grow old, or tired, or sick anymore; we'll recieve a new name - the one God picked out for each and everyone of us before birth; we will have eternity to explore the cosmos, to talk to people who lived throughout history; we will know everybody with an intimacy that few people on earth are ever able to approach - to love and be loved, to know and be known at a depth of vulnerability that is probably unknown on earth and only occasionally approached by old married couples that are still completely in love; we will live without suffering, without tragedy, without loss, without fear forever; we will be able to have access to the Creator of the universe and live in His light; we will be able to swim, and laugh, sing, run, fly, dive - you name it.


what if I want to be a workaholic and starve in heaven?  :Wink:  would that be allowed? what if I want to experience real suffering? I've never really experienced any real problems or suffering in my life. so, this would be a new and interesting experience for me.
but seing as I've done a handful of moral sins already and don't repent them, I'll probably go to hell  :Biggrin:  can I be a workaholic and suffer there?




> No - you would be incorrect, good sir. The "good guys" are God, Christ, the Holy Spirit and the angels who are unfallen; we here on earth are _rescued_ and _vindicated_ - but we don't "win" because we never had the power to beat the bad guys except through the strength given us by God.
> 
> Those who go to hell will know that they clearly chose that fate. In the end, when God reveals all, there will be no question - from either believer or non - that His judgment is completely just.


does this mean God created us knowing full well that we would never be able to be good but he expects us to be good anyway? if that's what it means, than God would be a cruel and cynical experimenter.

sorry if it's a stupid question but that's one of the things I've never understood about Christianity.




> And that is why i said mixing history with fiction in one book. That is also why i am querying whether or not there is a possiblity that the bible is an Annal.


hey Niamh, I belief many Christians in Germany(both Catholic and Protestant?? not sure) share your view. They see the Bible as a historical document that was compiled by human beings in specific historical and social circumstances. this is why they believe some bits of the Bible are not up-to-date because social and historical circumstances have changed but other bits are still relevant.



about the Annals, yep, I think for Jews the OT is the history of their tribe. they _do_ believe it all happened. but it's like a chronicle for them.

----------


## Niamh

> hey Niamh, I belief many Christians in Germany(both Catholic and Protestant?? not sure) share your view. They see the Bible as a historical document that was compiled by human beings in specific historical and social circumstances. this is why they believe some bits of the Bible are not up-to-date because social and historical circumstances have changed but other bits are still relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> about the Annals, yep, I think for Jews the OT is the history of their tribe. they _do_ believe it all happened. but it's like a chronicle for them.


thank you Sleepy. its good to know you understand what i'm trying to say.
This is the main reason why i dont think the Old Testement should be seen as gospel, and preached all over the world, because like you said, its the history of the jews.

----------


## SleepyWitch

> thank you Sleepy. its good to know you understand what i'm trying to say.
> This is the main reason why i dont think the Old Testement should be seen as gospel, and preached all over the world, because like you said, its the history of the jews.


ah gospel.. that's the word i was looking for. i knew there was a word that means 'opposite of history/annals/chronicles' in this context. thanks  :Smile:

----------


## Niamh

no problem

----------


## weepingforloman

> thank you Sleepy. its good to know you understand what i'm trying to say.
> This is the main reason why i dont think the Old Testement should be seen as gospel, and preached all over the world, because like you said, its the history of the jews.


Most Jewish sects are decidedly non-evangelical, and the OT is not the point of emphasis for Christians (we believe that Jesus was the embodiment of the Word of God, the Gospel of John says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh"). The OT is used mainly to provide examples of faithfulness or disobedience to God, and as the basis for various moral statements.

----------


## Unbeliever

I've often wondered, not why the Bible ends, but why it ends with Jesus promising to come quickly, and yet it's been 2000 years since those words were written. Even if, as some say, a thousand years is as a day in the sight of God, he's writing his word to us humans, to whom words like "quickly" have specific meanings. 

Revelation 22:20 
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. 
22:21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

----------


## Amaryllis

"I've often wondered, not why the Bible ends, but why it ends with Jesus promising to come quickly, and yet it's been 2000 years since those words were written. Even if, as some say, a thousand years is as a day in the sight of God, he's writing his word to us humans, to whom words like "quickly" have specific meanings."

In reply to Unbeliever. 

Oh the quickness of time! It is my firm belief that 2000 yrs. tis but a moment when compared to eternity. 

Some things are not meant to be understood by humans in this life... we must wait until our eternal life to know the truth. Christ is "the way, the *TRUTH*, and the life" John 14:6

----------


## Vittoria666

> I would say it seems unrealistic that by some trillionth chance the right bodies of matter collided and produced the physical universe, and by a billionth chance the right chemicals formed the sun, thereby pulling the solar system into place, and by some billionth of a billionth chance the right climate, chemicals, and conditions existed on one planet, and somehow (inexplicably) this thing we call "life" (we don't know what actually animates matter) really did appear, and that by some millionth chance the first organism survived long enough to reproduce, and that organism by a trillionth-trillionth chance genetically mutated and still managed to survive, and so on. Realistically, can an organism even survive significant mutation? 
> 
> I think it is unrealistic that this creature called Man evolved from the basest of beings: a.) morality/conciousness-where'd it come from? What's the gene for moral conduct? b.) that the many parts of man's physical were evolved (unless an organism got all the parts of the eye right on one shot-retina, cornea, iris, pupil, rods, cones, etc., it wouldn't work) c). that an organism with all these attributes somehow found one with the same attributes, they mated and thrived and d.) that mankind, if a merely evolutive anomaly, managed to survive with so few natural, physical gifts and talents.
> 
> What is unrealistic now?


I'm sorry but i dont understand what you meant by the very last question... if yu believe that we came out of apes then i find that vey unrealistic, i find the big bang a complete lie! its physicaly imposible that the solar system shot out of a hole in the universe! we have very few talents that some cant even explain... and who we are is possible.
so in a way the bible is right...
do you have anything else to say?

----------


## weepingforloman

I meant that I find the odds extremely against the Big Bang/Evolution.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> what if I want to be a workaholic and starve in heaven?  would that be allowed? what if I want to experience real suffering? I've never really experienced any real problems or suffering in my life. so, this would be a new and interesting experience for me.
> but seing as I've done a handful of moral sins already and don't repent them, I'll probably go to hell  can I be a workaholic and suffer there?


A wise theologian once answered the question "Who will be in heaven?" this way: "Who will be in heaven? The logical answer is this: the people who go to heaven would be the people who would enjoy being there." What that means is this: certain types of people would not want to go to heaven; people who think only of themselves would be miserable in heaven because heaven is run by a God who believes in service to others, unselfishness, etc. So, the answer is that the kind of person who goes to heaven isn't interested in suffering, or being a workaholic - such things are not of heaven.




> does this mean God created us knowing full well that we would never be able to be good but he expects us to be good anyway? if that's what it means, than God would be a cruel and cynical experimenter.


God - knowing sin as He does - knows that we cannot (or our own efforts) be "good." The only goodness we are capable of comes through His presence in our hearts. He expects us to be _obedient_ but understands that perfect behavior is an impossibility; that doesn't excuse us, but it makes clear that we are powerless in and of ourselves to be "good" people.




> sorry if it's a stupid question but that's one of the things I've never understood about Christianity.


The only "stupid" questions are the insincere ones.






> ...many Christians in Germany(both Catholic and Protestant?? not sure) share your view. They see the Bible as a historical document that was compiled by human beings in specific historical and social circumstances. this is why they believe some bits of the Bible are not up-to-date because social and historical circumstances have changed but other bits are still relevant.


The Bible is the transcendant word of God. It is all entirely "relevant" because it's job is not that of a history or science book; it is the revelation of God's character - and nothing about that is "out of date."

----------


## kilted exile

> A wise theologian once answered the question "Who will be in heaven?" this way: "Who will be in heaven? The logical answer is this: the people who go to heaven would be the people who would enjoy being there." What that means is this: certain types of people would not want to go to heaven; people who think only of themselves would be miserable in heaven because heaven is run by a God who believes in service to others, unselfishness, etc. So, the answer is that the kind of person who goes to heaven isn't interested in suffering, or being a workaholic - such things are not of heaven.


Ok, Red. You're gonna have to explain this for me here:

SCENARIO:

Man works hard all his life, enjoys working hard. Follows Christs teachings to the best of his ability, lives a good life, helps people etc. Would enjoy still working hard in heaven. Does he not go to heaven? Or does he go but is not able to continue working hard as he would like?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Ok, Red. You're gonna have to explain this for me here:
> 
> SCENARIO:
> 
> Man works hard all his life, enjoys working hard. Follows Christs teachings to the best of his ability, lives a good life, helps people etc. Would enjoy still working hard in heaven. Does he not go to heaven? Or does he go but is not able to continue working hard as he would like?


Good question. There is a difference between enjoying work and being a "workaholic" (which is simply another form of addictive behavior - something we do because it "medicates" us in some way). I think work will be available for those who enjoy it - Adam and Eve were given duties in the Garden of Eden. 

A man who fits the description you gave would enjoy heaven because his attitude towards work is a correct one; but, when work becomes a "drug" that begins to derail our lives, then no - a workaholic would not enjoy heaven because the "payoff" for being a workaholic doesn't exist there like it does here (here workaholics are _rewarded_ - a least by the job [their personal lives, however, are a shambles]).

----------


## weepingforloman

> God - knowing sin as He does - knows that we cannot (or our own efforts) be "good." The only goodness we are capable of comes through His presence in our hearts. He expects us to be _obedient_ but understands that perfect behavior is an impossibility; that doesn't excuse us, but it makes clear that we are powerless in and of ourselves to be "good" people.


You're more Calvinist than you think!

----------


## JGL57

> I'm sorry but i dont understand what you meant by the very last question... if yu believe that we came out of apes then i find that vey unrealistic, i find the big bang a complete lie! its physicaly imposible that the solar system shot out of a hole in the universe! we have very few talents that some cant even explain... and who we are is possible.
> so in a way the bible is right...
> do you have anything else to say?


So the thousands of extant scientists who see all this completely differently than you do - how would you explain that fact? Are they part of some conspiracy, in the service of Satan, in rebellion against god, just joking around, stupid, ignorant, or crazy compared to you, or what?




> I meant that I find the odds extremely against the Big Bang/Evolution.


I don't see how odds apply here. If the big bang was deterministic, then your statement is utterly meaningless and wrong. If it was indeterminate, then from where do you get your information that the odds were against it happening? 

The odds may very well have been one in a gazillion, or maybe actually one in three, or even a trillion out of a trillion and one. You have no way or knowing which is closer to the truth - in which case your statement is meaningless.

----------


## Vittoria666

> So the thousands of extant scientists who see all this completely differently than you do - how would you explain that fact? Are they part of some conspiracy, in the service of Satan, in rebellion against god, just joking around, stupid, ignorant, or crazy compared to you, or what?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how odds apply here. If the big bang was deterministic, then your statement is utterly meaningless and wrong. If it was indeterminate, then from where do you get your information that the odds were against it happening? 
> 
> The odds may very well have been one in a gazillion, or maybe actually one in three, or even a trillion out of a trillion and one. You have no way or knowing which is closer to the truth - in which case your statement is meaningless.


Were you adressing those insults towards me?

I dont think that those scientists who believe in their theories are satanists or in rebelion against god, i think that they are wrong because they are giving people information and dont have acctual proof that the big bang happened or that we came out of apes... they are giving society false belief.

----------


## Gorilla King

I'll be honest, I'm on the fence between creationism and theistic evolution. But frankly, until science can actually show the evolution of a species from fossil records or any other means, I remain a skeptic. Now I absolutely believe in micro evolution (if you can call it evolution) because there are recorded instances of the white moths of Britain turning gray during the industrial revolution to better protect against predators. However, I am not entirely convinced on macro evolution yet. 

That said though, I absolutely believe that the big bang was real and that it was God's doing. The idea of eternal matter seems more preposterous to me than the idea of an eternal God. Reason being that if there were an infinite number of possibilities for other universes to have existed before this one, then there would have been infinite possibilities for life to have formed. The problem is that it's becoming increasingly clear that the universe is actually ACCELERATING in it's expansion, even beyond the point of a cosmic crunch becoming fathomable. That being the case, it would have had infinite opportunities before to do so and when dealing with infinity, if it's possible then it has to happen. Clearly it's possible, so therefore it had to have happened. However if it happened, a cosmic crunch to result in our present big bang would have been utterly impossible and furthermore, given the circumstances of the universe now, another big bang would be utterly impossible. So either this is the last universe in a not so infinite number of universes, or this is the only universe that has ever been and it had a creator behind it.

And I suppose you could argue that lesser big bangs...or small bangs if you will could occur with the gathering of various smaller balls of matter, but inevitably, some would escape being a part of that and hence with each successive bang, the universe would lose matter to the depths of space. Given enough time, there would not be enough matter left for anymore bangs. Now in an infinite universe this would have already happened. Given that it hasn't, we either have to say it's a finite universe which brings us one step closer to God, or we have to say that it's the only universe which brings us right to God.

----------


## Niamh

i'd believe in evolution quicker than god creating the world in seven days.

----------


## JGL57

> ...I dont think that those scientists who believe in their theories are satanists or in rebelion against god, i think that they are wrong because they are giving people information and dont have acctual proof that the big bang happened or that we came out of apes... they are giving society false belief.


So the entire ediface of modern science is a horrible joke on society? Scientists just make stuff up, willy-nilly? We would be better off without it? You are NOT a monkey's uncle? 

I find all that hard to believe (the false logic of argument from incredulity, I guess).

But you could be right. E.g., we could all just be in the Matrix. Or time could be an illusion, with all of reality just a timeless dream of Vishnu. Or.... well, the mind boggles at the possibilities that exist that are beyond proof or disproof.

----------


## Dark Star

> According to whom?


Pretty much any scholar working in those fields.

We know the creation story, Noah's Ark story, and the Exodus didn't happen. Jesus' miracle stories certainly didn't for the obvious reasons, and even his existence is under heavy debate. And that's just getting started.

I recommend reading _The Bible Unearthed_.

----------


## Dark Star

> I'll be honest, I'm on the fence between creationism and theistic evolution. But frankly, until science can actually show the evolution of a species from fossil records or any other means, I remain a skeptic.


Where have you done your research? This has been done and speciation has also been directly observed among living species.

I'll be back with some links later. :Smile: 

EDIT:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

----------


## weepingforloman

> Pretty much any scholar working in those fields.
> 
> We know the creation story, Noah's Ark story, and the Exodus didn't happen. Jesus' miracle stories certainly didn't for the obvious reasons, and even his existence is under heavy debate. And that's just getting started.
> 
> I recommend reading _The Bible Unearthed_.


Obvious reasons? Miracles are, by definition, interference with nature... so, if they can happen, they could not be proved.

----------


## Gorilla King

> Pretty much any scholar working in those fields.
> 
> We know the creation story, Noah's Ark story, and the Exodus didn't happen. Jesus' miracle stories certainly didn't for the obvious reasons, and even his existence is under heavy debate. And that's just getting started.
> 
> I recommend reading _The Bible Unearthed_.


Before you hop on the historical minamalist bandwagon, why not try reading these two:

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Egypt-E...2636776&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Israel...2636776&sr=8-1

Just as a warning though, if you're used to garbage naturalistic apologetics they may be over your head.

----------


## Dark Star

'Garbage naturalistic apologetics'? What is that exactly? And for you, I'll recommend _Unearthing the Bible_ while I look into these.

EDIT: Based on the reviews and description of the content of the first book you listed the approach it takes is 'Well...even though there's no reliable evidence that it happened and all the archaeological evidence out there goes directly against it happening...there is a bit of circumstantial evidence which indicates a remote possibility that it occurred, so I'm going to say it did' so forgive me for rejecting that one out of hand. I'm reading up on the second text now.

----------


## Dark Star

> Obvious reasons? Miracles are, by definition, interference with nature... so, if they can happen, they could not be proved.


Frankly, if such a thing could occur it's likely that we would have found some sort of evidence of people who could do the things that the Gospels claim Jesus did. Yet, all the people who make these various claims about being able to heal people by the power of faith, bring back the dead, and other things of a supernatural alignment such as that have failed to show any evidence of being capable of doing so. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that people (or any given person) had magic powers back then and the human race somehow lost them over time, so I'm just going to apply Occam's Razor and say those miracles were fictional.

----------


## Gorilla King

> Frankly, if such a thing could occur it's likely that we would have found some sort of evidence of people who could do the things that the Gospels claim Jesus did. Yet, all the people who make these various claims about being able to heal people by the power of faith, bring back the dead, and other things of a supernatural alignment such as that have failed to show any evidence of being capable of doing so. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that people (or any given person) had magic powers back then and the human race somehow lost them over time, so I'm just going to apply Occam's Razor and say those miracles were fictional.


Well then if miracles are fictional then I am clearly insane with some of the things I've seen. Perhaps reason alone is blind.

----------


## Gorilla King

> 'Garbage naturalistic apologetics'? What is that exactly? And for you, I'll recommend _Unearthing the Bible_ while I look into these.
> 
> EDIT: Based on the reviews and description of the content of the first book you listed the approach it takes is 'Well...even though there's no reliable evidence that it happened and all the archaeological evidence out there goes directly against it happening...there is a bit of circumstantial evidence which indicates a remote possibility that it occurred, so I'm going to say it did' so forgive me for rejecting that one out of hand. I'm reading up on the second text now.


And after you read the first book you'll understand the hypocrisy in archeology today and the tendency to accept sources from other religions but deny those from Christianity. As for the naturalistic garbage, those are the ones that automatically say, "miracles can't happen. The Bible has miracles. Therefore the Bible is a lie." If you don't BELIEVE miracles can happen that's one thing, but to flat out say that they can't would require a person to possess all possible knowledge. 


I may check out the book you've recommended but judging by the reviews, I think I might find it rather elementary. There are far better books out there both for and against the idea of God. And don't even mention Dawkins. One can only hope he's as smart as a scientist as he is ignorant as a pseudo-theologian.

----------


## Dark Star

> And after you read the first book you'll understand the hypocrisy in archeology today and the tendency to accept sources from other religions but deny those from Christianity.


The argument on the topic of whether the Exodus occurred or not has nothing to do with accepting sources from other religions and denying those from the Old Testament. It has to do with the fact that there is no record whatsoever of the Egyptians ever owning Jewish slaves (secular or religious), and the fact that all the archaeological evidence from multiple searches in the area reveals absolutely zero evidence of a large group of people traipsing around there for forty years, and if anything, indicates that any populations were native to the area.




> As for the naturalistic garbage, those are the ones that automatically say, "miracles can't happen. The Bible has miracles. Therefore the Bible is a lie." If you don't BELIEVE miracles can happen that's one thing, but to flat out say that they can't would require a person to possess all possible knowledge.


True, however, the idea that they can happen but have never been observed is unlikely. Is it a possibility that they can happen? Yes, but a remote one. In any case, you've made a straw man with 'The Bible has miracles, thus the Bible is a lie.' It's simply a case that firstly, those miracles are likely to be a lie and secondly, when a text has material such as that in it while it does not automatically invalidate it's historical value it certainly makes the value suspect. There's a reason _The Odyssey_ isn't treated as a historical document even though, in theory, those events could have all occurred. 





> I may check out the book you've recommended but judging by the reviews, I think I might find it rather elementary. There are far better books out there both for and against the idea of God. And don't even mention Dawkins. One can only hope he's as smart as a scientist as he is ignorant as a pseudo-theologian.


And we have yet another straw man. Not to mention, unless I've misunderstood you you're creating a false dichotomy by implying that recognizing that many tales in the Bible aren't historical truth is the equivalent of not believing in God or being a Christian. Whether the Bible is historically accurate or not and books on that topic have nothing to do with books 'for or against the idea of God' so there is no need to drag Dawkins into this. Many people -- including the authors of the aforementioned book -- believe in God but recognize that many of the tales in the Bible were meant as allegorical tales rather than as literal historical happenings. On a different note, Dawkins has never made an attempt to be a theologian, so I find that comment to be rather far out in left field.

EDIT: Just for the hell of it, in case anyone's interested, if I was going to recommend a book on the atheism v.s. theism debate it would be _The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God_ by J.L. Mackie.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Frankly, if such a thing could occur it's likely that we would have found some sort of evidence of people who could do the things that the Gospels claim Jesus did. Yet, all the people who make these various claims about being able to heal people by the power of faith, bring back the dead, and other things of a supernatural alignment such as that have failed to show any evidence of being capable of doing so. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that people (or any given person) had magic powers back then and the human race somehow lost them over time, so I'm just going to apply Occam's Razor and say those miracles were fictional.


Magic is not miracle, magic is entirely different than divine power. By the way, that's why Jesus can be thought to have performed miracles, while others couldn't: Christ was God. Occam's Razor is good up to a point, but do you really think it holds in most cases? For instance, could Occam's Razor come up with atomic structure, or even cell structure? It has its failings.

----------


## Dark Star

> Well then if miracles are fictional then I am clearly insane with some of the things I've seen. Perhaps reason alone is blind.


Or perhaps they're things that can be ascribed to natural causes that it's easier to call 'miracles' due to confirmation bias. The idea that these things occur and you're the only one who seems them occur when have found no evidence of these is a lot more unlikely.

----------


## Dark Star

> Magic is not miracle, magic is entirely different than divine power. By the way, that's why Jesus can be thought to have performed miracles, while others couldn't: Christ was God. Occam's Razor is good up to a point, but do you really think it holds in most cases? For instance, could Occam's Razor come up with atomic structure, or even cell structure? It has its failings.


I will admit it can't hold up in all situations, however, it holds up in cases of point of view A that doesn't involve making an unproven supernatural claim and point of view B that does quite well.

The problem with the 'Christ is God and therefore he could perform miracles' element is that that in itself lays quite a heavy burden on the need to prove that he is God. Otherwise, all we're doing is getting into circular reasoning along the lines of 'Christ could perform miracles because he was God. Therefore his performing miracles is proof that he was in fact God.'


On an entirely un-related note, since I'm the new guy here I have a question for anyone willing to respond: Do the topics on this sub-forum, as a whole, steer in the general direction of theism/atheism and evolution/creationism debates? These debates are fun and all, however, I was hoping that there would be more discussions of actual religious texts here.

And yes, I will be making an effort (hopefully some time soon) to rectify this minor case of hypocrisy and pull together some sort of topic on a religious text.

----------


## Logos

> On an entirely un-related note, since I'm the new guy here I have a question for anyone willing to respond: Do the topics on this sub-forum, as a whole, steer in the general direction of theism/atheism and evolution/creationism debates? These debates are fun and all, however, I was hoping that there would be more discussions of actual religious texts here.


Actually, the Religious Texts forum's rules have been changed recently so that *only* new topics started regarding specific texts are allowed  :Smile: 
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=15410

----------


## Dark Star

I'd noticed the rule change and had a feeling that it may have to do with these sorts of debates taking over this forum (based on other forums I've visited) and an attempt to change that, however, being new I didn't want to condescend to making an assumption like that since I didn't know the history of this place.

----------


## weepingforloman

> The problem with the 'Christ is God and therefore he could perform miracles' element is that that in itself lays quite a heavy burden on the need to prove that he is God. Otherwise, all we're doing is getting into circular reasoning along the lines of 'Christ could perform miracles because he was God. Therefore his performing miracles is proof that he was in fact God.'


Quite. I said what I did to explain the rationale behind the miracles, not to prove Christ's divinity. I would not expect you to take them as proof of His God-ship. That is a much more difficult argument, and, one ultimately based on faith much more than the miracles.

----------


## NikolaiI

If it didn't end, it would get too long. Wasn't there some emperor who paid for a unified bible or something?

----------


## weepingforloman

Emperor Constantine, the first "Christian" emperor of Rome, called a council to settle disputes in the Church, including the canon (the books of the Bible). That was the Council of Nicea. The theological reason that the Bible ends is that Revelations was the last divinely-inspired writing... Divine inspiration means that God guided the writing of a book (not the "whispering in the author's ear" thing, that is a caricature) to say what He intended it to say. And we believe Revelations was the last of these (though the Ethiopian Coptic Church has about 60 books more than the others).

----------


## linz

*I am going to give my view as to why the Bible ends, and to please Logos, it will be based on the final chapters of the last book of the Bible. 'The New Jerusalem' rests on God's final separation of the dark from the light. It doesn't refer to separating evil people from good people, but more evils in people from goods in people; in other words, the repeating notion of nothing that offends being in the New Jerusalem. It also mention the 'healing of the nations', and Christ's message being as the total spirit of prophecy the world over.*

----------


## Neil Thomas

I think Christianity is a perfectly good religion. It offers forgiveness. I like that. But why does it end? Portability maybe? A nice package the way it is? For all intended purposes it works like that? 
You know I must say I am more into philsosphy than relions per say. With just about any religion the lid is screwed down tight. I don't like that. I like to take a good clean look at things know and then. Philsophy is likes that.
Check out this site cchr.com 

Yours truly Neil Thomas, author of 'Newport a fairy tale of sorts'

----------


## Gorilla King

> I think Christianity is a perfectly good religion. It offers forgiveness. I like that. But why does it end? Portability maybe? A nice package the way it is? For all intended purposes it works like that? 
> You know I must say I am more into philsosphy than relions per say. With just about any religion the lid is screwed down tight. I don't like that. I like to take a good clean look at things know and then. Philsophy is likes that.
> Check out this site cchr.com 
> 
> Yours truly Neil Thomas, author of 'Newport a fairy tale of sorts'


The Bible ends, but Christianity doesn't. There's a ridiculous amount of material outside the bible that's been written over the centuries. The New testament ends because it tells us about Jesus. There's nothing to add to that until the events spoken of in Revelation come to pass.

----------


## ampoule

> why does the bible stop? Why didnt people carry on writing it into this day? I would really like it if someone could tell me the answer.


Like all great literature, a final word is there for us to look upon but the whole of it lives on in our souls.

----------


## weepingforloman

There's no reason for the Bible not to stop. The sheer hassle of figuring out what to include would occupy everyone forever. Plus, Kanye West thinks he should be included if a new biblical book is written. And I don't think any of us want that.

----------


## Dark Star

> Plus, Kanye West thinks he should be included if a new biblical book is written. And I don't think any of us want that.


Well, we agree on SOMETHING... :Biggrin:  

Although, if a new one is written they may as well throw in all the Gnostic texts that got left out the first time.

----------


## weepingforloman

The Gnostic ones were written later, and were laughably ridiculous. The Gospel of Thomas features Christ shriveling up a boy who gets in His way. But Kanye should definitely be kept out.

----------


## Dark Star

Actually, the Gnostic texts are generally dated earlier than the other Gospels at around 45 CE (as opposed to 65-100 CE), around the same time as Paul's letters. And is that Gospel that you speak of the one where he kills the boy then brings him back to life? That isn't considered a legitimate Gnostic text, if so. More like 'Biblical fanfiction'.

EDIT: You're clearly thinking of a different Gospel. The Gospel of Thomas is one long collection of 'the sayings of Jesus.' Nothing to do with any biographical details.

----------


## Gorilla King

> Actually, the Gnostic texts are generally dated earlier than the other Gospels at around 45 CE (as opposed to 65-100 CE), around the same time as Paul's letters. And is that Gospel that you speak of the one where he kills the boy then brings him back to life? That isn't considered a legitimate Gnostic text, if so. More like 'Biblical fanfiction'.
> 
> EDIT: You're clearly thinking of a different Gospel. The Gospel of Thomas is one long collection of 'the sayings of Jesus.' Nothing to do with any biographical details.


Try 225 AD.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Actually, the Gnostic texts are generally dated earlier than the other Gospels at around 45 CE (as opposed to 65-100 CE), around the same time as Paul's letters. And is that Gospel that you speak of the one where he kills the boy then brings him back to life? That isn't considered a legitimate Gnostic text, if so. More like 'Biblical fanfiction'.
> 
> EDIT: You're clearly thinking of a different Gospel. The Gospel of Thomas is one long collection of 'the sayings of Jesus.' Nothing to do with any biographical details.


There are multiple Gospels of Thomas. No, most of the non-canonical gospels are dated later. A couple may be earlier, but so what?

No, I mean that He literally kills the boy for being in His way. It's ridiculous.

----------


## Dark Star

That Gospel is considered to be a fraud, not an authentic Gospel. The one where he kills the boy, I mean.

And, most of the Gnostic gospels are dated earlier, actually.

As for so what? Umm....you brought up that they were dated to a later time (I'm guessing as a reason they shouldn't have been included), I'm just correcting you. I also fail to see how one that's not considered a legitimate Gnostic gospel (that involves Jesus killing a boy for example) makes the whole collection 'ridiculous.'

Also, I just checked. There is _one_ gospel of Thomas...the aforementioned gospel of sayings of Jesus.

EDIT: Just did a bit of research...the 'Gospel' where Jesus kills a child is known as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and is NOT considered a legitimate Gnostic gospel. It's essentially thought of as 'Biblical fanfiction' or something like the 'The Inquirer' tabloid. It was written to fill in the gaps of time in Jesus' life left by the other gospels.

----------


## MaryLupin

Speaking from a literary point of view, the "Bible" ends because it has a point to make. All books do that - even deconstructionist texts. I the Christian version of the bible, the whole point is to support the story of Jesus as the messiah (promised in the original Jewish version of this written story). The Jewish version (Torah, etc) supports/ends with a different expectation. Those writings work to support the place of the Temple in the lives of the people: it prepares for the coming of the new temple as its main point not the messiah. Anyone who studies literature knows that the same sentences can be used (with minimal variation) to tell a completely different story. This is what the compilers of these texts knew. The Christian bible, and what books were included, tells a story. A comparative study of the two versions is an excellent way to teach the power and methods of rhetoric.

----------


## Gorilla King

> That Gospel is considered to be a fraud, not an authentic Gospel. The one where he kills the boy, I mean.
> 
> And, most of the Gnostic gospels are dated earlier, actually.
> 
> As for so what? Umm....you brought up that they were dated to a later time (I'm guessing as a reason they shouldn't have been included), I'm just correcting you. I also fail to see how one that's not considered a legitimate Gnostic gospel (that involves Jesus killing a boy for example) makes the whole collection 'ridiculous.'
> 
> Also, I just checked. There is _one_ gospel of Thomas...the aforementioned gospel of sayings of Jesus.
> 
> EDIT: Just did a bit of research...the 'Gospel' where Jesus kills a child is known as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and is NOT considered a legitimate Gnostic gospel. It's essentially thought of as 'Biblical fanfiction' or something like the 'The Inquirer' tabloid. It was written to fill in the gaps of time in Jesus' life left by the other gospels.


You forget that even though the gospels were written between 60-90AD, the epistles were written within 2-3 years following Jesus' death. Therefore, the oral tradition of belief was already well established. Any attempt to claim otherwise is just a case of smoke and mirrors.

----------


## Dark Star

False. The Epistles were written around 45 AD. His time of death is believed to be between 30-32 AD. There's a gap in there of a lot more than 2-3 years.

----------


## weepingforloman

We forget, regardless of the timing, that story-telling was an established art in the Near East. They did not forget easily, and the message was rarely changed in the telling.

----------


## Niamh

> We forget, regardless of the timing, that story-telling was an established art in the Near East. They did not forget easily, and the message was rarely changed in the telling.


Yes but that doesnt mean that stories cant be modified with each telling. To assume what you hear/read regarding a story is true, does not mean that its te original tale or story. Something learned in folklore and oral history in college.

----------


## Dark Star

> We forget, regardless of the timing, that story-telling was an established art in the Near East. They did not forget easily, and the message was rarely changed in the telling.


I was not arguing about accuracy of the story, if it was true, or anything like that. I was simply correcting a mistake in the dating to avoid misinformation from being spread further, that's all.  :Smile:

----------


## Gorilla King

> False. The Epistles were written around 45 AD. His time of death is believed to be between 30-32 AD. There's a gap in there of a lot more than 2-3 years.


lol. Where'd you get that bit of information? Read any real biblical scholars lately? :FRlol:

----------


## weepingforloman

> Yes but that doesnt mean that stories cant be modified with each telling. To assume what you hear/read regarding a story is true, does not mean that its te original tale or story. Something learned in folklore and oral history in college.


Unless otherwise told, I will assume that your class focused on Western oral tradition. Consider for a moment that no one (or at least very few) debate the accuracy of our version of The Iliad and The Odyssey. Homer was alive in an illiterate period of Greece, and the story was not written down for a century or six. The East, and the quasi-East are much better at story telling and preservation of oral tradition than we in the West are.



> I was not arguing about accuracy of the story, if it was true, or anything like that. I was simply correcting a mistake in the dating to avoid misinformation from being spread further, that's all.


OK.

----------


## rintrah

Not sure if the whole bible ending thing was wrapped up, and the thread's too long for me to follow entirely, but there is another view on this.

Mormons believe that it (revelation from God to man) has not ended, that the bible is just one of a number of records containing God's word, and that such revelations continue today, with apostles and prophets, as in biblical times

----------


## weepingforloman

Yes... but Christians do not believe that divine inspiration is still in progress in modes similar to those of the biblical age. Just as (besides the Pentecostals) we do not believe that particular spiritual gifts are still active.

----------


## rintrah

> Yes... but Christians do not believe that divine inspiration is still in progress in modes similar to those of the biblical age.


Some Christians do . . .

----------


## Niamh

> Unless otherwise told, I will assume that your class focused on Western oral tradition. Consider for a moment that no one (or at least very few) debate the accuracy of our version of The Iliad and The Odyssey. Homer was alive in an illiterate period of Greece, and the story was not written down for a century or six. The East, and the quasi-East are much better at story telling and preservation of oral tradition than we in the West are.
> 
> OK.


No it was more of a general worldly course, but obviously focused on Irish more. Sure the Irish were considered one of the best story telling through oral traditions in the world. All came part and parcel of not being allow to have an education and practice our religion for a few hundred years. But when push comes to shove, even in oral historical forms stories can get elaborated and warpped. Where do you think chinese whispers came from Weeping. :Smile:

----------


## togre

Why does the Bible end? The Bible itself answers that in John Chapter 20. "Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this book. But these things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

The Bible was written with one purpose--to let people know that in Jesus there is a Savior, a Substitute God punished in my place for my sins so that I could be forgiven and live for him and with him. It doesn't tell us everything that ever happened, even in Jesus' life. Instead, it tells us what God has determined is important; it tells us the facts (historical facts) that lead to our salvation.


rintrah observed that "Mormons believe that it (revelation from God to man) has not ended, that the bible is just one of a number of records containing God's word, and that such revelations continue today, with apostles and prophets, as in biblical times"

To rintrah, not Just Mormons claim "the Bible is just one of a number of records containing God's Word." But read the Bible and compare it to these other "records." They disagree!! If one is true, the other cannot be! If one come from God, the other can not.

----------


## NikolaiI

How do they disagree?

----------


## Dark Star

> How do they disagree?


More importantly, how do we know if it was the Bible, the Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon that 'came from God'?

----------


## NikolaiI

You are forgetting the Bhagavad-Gita, my favourite!  :Smile:  I think they all say that it is a revelation of God's.

And wouldn't the most likely answer be that none of them were from God? Or that the Bhagavad-Gita was? hehe..

----------


## Dark Star

I didn't mention the Bhagavad Gita since the 'God' of Hinduism (and the one it speaks of) is a distinctly different deity than the Judeo-Christian-Islamic one.

----------


## NikolaiI

True, I guess they are different. I guess I must admit I don't know a lot about Hindi theology, just the little I've read from the Bhagavad-Gita, and the explanation of that text by...let me look it up...A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada I think his name is. I just remember passages about sages, purity, yoga, what he accepts as offerings and one about his followers not realizing they are with the Supreme Personality of Godhead because they are so immersed in pure love.. they are vegetarian, if I am correct.  :Smile:

----------


## Dark Star

The Islamic God is Yahweh, the Old Testament God. They view Jesus as a prophet rather than a God.

And, I agree with you, those paintings on the topic are certainly beautiful based on what few I've seen (that is, based on the plates from _The Bhagavad Gita: As It Is_ and a few on websites), however, it's still a different concept although I'll admit to being at the limits of my knowledge here and not able to properly articulate the differences between the two, even if I have an idea of it in my head.

Mind if PM you to continue this discussion so we don't drag this off topic?  :Smile:

----------


## NikolaiI

Sure, actually let me send you one. Sorry for changing my post, by the way.

----------


## quasimodo1

Why does the bible begin?

----------


## Derringer

:Thumbs Up:  

I agree

----------


## NikolaiI

Oh, and I am fairly sure a lot of Christians understand God as Yahweh, for the same reason, that that's how he's introduced, "I Am", etc., that was one of the first things I remember learning about God. It's probably the most believable thing about Christianity.

----------


## Dark Star

I'm sure they do, however, they understand Yahweh as part of trinity. Islam and Judaism do not. That's the big difference.

----------


## Gorilla King

Why are all these atheists speaking as if they know what they're talking about? *slaps forehead*

----------


## NikolaiI

Let's not discuss each other.  :Wink:  And there's no such thing as atheism, anyway, remember?

----------


## kari

> More importantly, how do we know if it was the Bible, the Qur'an, or the Book of Mormon that 'came from God'?


You might be interested to know that a lot of the same parables in the Bible are in the Book of Mormon...
Kari

----------


## Dark Star

While I haven't had a chance to get my hands on the Book of Mormon yet, I wouldn't doubt it much like I wouldn't doubt that Jesus in the NT corresponds with the OT's prophecies. When the writer of a text is writing with the older one (or ones in this case) in hand it's quite easy to fill in someone that fits all those prophecies....or in this case, employ the same parables.

----------


## Gorilla King

> While I haven't had a chance to get my hands on the Book of Mormon yet, I wouldn't doubt it much like I wouldn't doubt that Jesus in the NT corresponds with the OT's prophecies. When the writer of a text is writing with the older one (or ones in this case) in hand it's quite easy to fill in someone that fits all those prophecies....or in this case, employ the same parables.


But when history actually reveals that Jesus existed and that the gospels are accurate then you have to choose.

----------


## Vittoria666

> So the entire ediface of modern science is a horrible joke on society? Scientists just make stuff up, willy-nilly? We would be better off without it? You are NOT a monkey's uncle? 
> 
> I find all that hard to believe (the false logic of argument from incredulity, I guess).
> 
> But you could be right. E.g., we could all just be in the Matrix. Or time could be an illusion, with all of reality just a timeless dream of Vishnu. Or.... well, the mind boggles at the possibilities that exist that are beyond proof or disproof.



You and i could both be wrong or equaly right... my point is ... its good to have belief in something but sometimes the belief is turned into hope... thats when it gets tricky... if what the scientists are telling us has something to do with things related to the future... like an apocalypse people start waiting and hoping that it will or will not happen and they give and exact time for it to happen... it then doesnt go the way people expect because they were given false hope and a false belief. do you get me???

i am not saying that its all good for nothing or that we are better off without it.. i am saying that they should not try to misslead or inform incorrectly about really big things like time, space, big bang, evolution... they should inform people when they are sure of what they found out... not so that they can sell more books and appeare on front pages. its not supposed to be about fame and respect from the society.

----------


## Vittoria666

> I meant that I find the odds extremely against the Big Bang/Evolution.


Then explain point D on the previouse post

----------


## weepingforloman

What post?

----------


## Dark Star

I still posit that a better understanding of the big bang and evolution would remedy the situation of the odds being extremely against them.

That said, do you by chance view the big bang as something that would point to the lack of existence of God?

I ask because I frequently chance across believers who reject the big bang for that reason which I find extremely odd since it was a Catholic priest that came up with the theory in the first place. :Confused:

----------


## weepingforloman

No, I do not find it to exclude the possibility of God. I merely think it is unlikely, without something setting it up, so to speak, that the Big Bang could have occurred.

----------


## kiobe

The christian bible was finalized somewhere about 317ce at the request of Constantine.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"The christian bible was finalized somewhere about 317ce at the request of Constantine"

Not exactly - Biblical scholarship is ongoing, and there are no first century tablets of stone, so the Bible is probably not yet finalized.

----------


## weepingforloman

Um, the canon is more or less closed.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Um, the canon is more or less closed.


Closed? By whom, with what authority, and is "God" not to be permitted to speak further unless by application to some Ecclesiastical committee?

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Um, the canon is more or less closed."

More or less? As in more or less pregnant?

My comment was prompted by the discussion in a different thread about 1 John 5:7. A part of the verse found its way into the accepted canon between about 400AD and 800AD, but seems to have been driven out again by Biblical scholarship within the last two or three decades. 
If a verifiable "Q" document were found, that might have an effect on, say, the accepted content of Matthew's gospel or Luke's, or even be admitted into the canon in its own right. 

The church has always acknowledged a degree of compromise and doubt about the content and origin of its scriptures. In earlier times, the consensus was agreed in ecumenical councils - and doubtless it was hotly debated in those councils by the best scholars - and equally, it was probably the noisiest rather than the best who won in debates. 
Nowadays, there are no councils to speak for the whole church, so it is the purchasing power of christians that will decide the canon - if some bible publisher includes the Gospel of Thomas and it sells well, then gradually others will include it and in a generation people will have forgotten that it is a recently-found ancient text.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

Somewhat off-topic, I'm afraid, but there's a wonderful work of fiction called _The Q Document_, by Robert L. Duncan, based on the premise that the Q document has been found and is in the hands of someone living in mainland China. Wonderfully well-written & compelling.

----------


## weepingforloman

> Closed? By whom, with what authority, and is "God" not to be permitted to speak further unless by application to some Ecclesiastical committee?


Closed, we believe, by the authority of God Himself. Read Revelation a bit more carefully, my friend.



> "Um, the canon is more or less closed."
> 
> More or less? As in more or less pregnant?
> 
> My comment was prompted by the discussion in a different thread about 1 John 5:7. A part of the verse found its way into the accepted canon between about 400AD and 800AD, but seems to have been driven out again by Biblical scholarship within the last two or three decades. 
> If a verifiable "Q" document were found, that might have an effect on, say, the accepted content of Matthew's gospel or Luke's, or even be admitted into the canon in its own right. 
> 
> The church has always acknowledged a degree of compromise and doubt about the content and origin of its scriptures. In earlier times, the consensus was agreed in ecumenical councils - and doubtless it was hotly debated in those councils by the best scholars - and equally, it was probably the noisiest rather than the best who won in debates. 
> Nowadays, there are no councils to speak for the whole church, so it is the purchasing power of christians that will decide the canon - if some bible publisher includes the Gospel of Thomas and it sells well, then gradually others will include it and in a generation people will have forgotten that it is a recently-found ancient text.


We believe that the Spirit guided the canonization of the Bible. Frankly, there is nothing that could really be added and make a significant difference in our understanding of Christ without also changing the very nature of the faith, which would, therefore, have to be rejected. We believe what we believe, and we therefore believe that departures from the faith are errors.



> Somewhat off-topic, I'm afraid, but there's a wonderful work of fiction called _The Q Document_, by Robert L. Duncan, based on the premise that the Q document has been found and is in the hands of someone living in mainland China. Wonderfully well-written & compelling.


Hmm... So Christ would have more sayings, probably just the same as the ones contained in the Gospels? Fascinating.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Weepingforloman: "We believe that the Spirit guided the canonization of the Bible. Frankly, there is nothing that could really be added and make a significant difference in our understanding of Christ without also changing the very nature of the faith, which would, therefore, have to be rejected. We believe what we believe, and we therefore believe that departures from the faith are errors."

The Spirit's guidance took the form, in the early church at least, of an interaction between what was believed and what was included. "We reckon that book to be scriptural because it accords with what we believe" went alongside with "We believe that because it is written in such & such a book." 

This interaction is not a bad thing or a weakness; it arises out of the fact that Christianity started out of real events and how many real & diverse people understood those events, in the light of the relationships they had with Jesus. The writings followed on as an attempt to explain the unexplainable. I agree with you that the canon is unlikely to change much, because it is limited to writings which were a) produced within living memory of Jesus and b) agree largely with what is already believed. In fact, the belief still determines the content as much as te content determines the belief.

It took hundreds of years for the balance to settle, more or less, as to what should be included, and the debate about what should be believed is far from over. Major upheavals in belief occurred, for instance, in the sixteenth century, and in the twentieth.

Individuals may have fixed and unchangeable beliefs (or think, at the age of fourteen that they do) but beliefs held within the church are in a constant state of flux.

The game, I think, is to live as if your current belief were absolutely true, but to allow your mind and spirit the freedom to modify that belief in the light of experience and maturity.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Weepingforloman: "We believe that the Spirit guided the canonization of the Bible. Frankly, there is nothing that could really be added and make a significant difference in our understanding of Christ without also changing the very nature of the faith, which would, therefore, have to be rejected. We believe what we believe, and we therefore believe that departures from the faith are errors."
> 
> The Spirit's guidance took the form, in the early church at least, of an interaction between what was believed and what was included. "We reckon that book to be scriptural because it accords with what we believe" went alongside with "We believe that because it is written in such & such a book." 
> 
> This interaction is not a bad thing or a weakness; it arises out of the fact that Christianity started out of real events and how many real & diverse people understood those events, in the light of the relationships they had with Jesus. The writings followed on as an attempt to explain the unexplainable. I agree with you that the canon is unlikely to change much, because it is limited to writings which were a) produced within living memory of Jesus and b) agree largely with what is already believed. In fact, the belief still determines the content as much as te content determines the belief.
> 
> It took hundreds of years for the balance to settle, more or less, as to what should be included, and the debate about what should be believed is far from over. Major upheavals in belief occurred, for instance, in the sixteenth century, and in the twentieth.
> 
> Individuals may have fixed and unchangeable beliefs (or think, at the age of fourteen that they do) but beliefs held within the church are in a constant state of flux.
> ...


What a blast of cool, fresh air this is! Do you by chance write from a mountain top, high above the smog of ego and scholarly disputation?

I disagree with some of what you say. The canon (so far as I know it) seems to me to have resulted from a hodge-podge of historical documents of differing degrees of verisimiltude patched together by for the most-part well-meaning but unavoidably fallible men (rarely if ever women, hmm, as if only 49.9% of human wisdom were eligible) batting back and forth _Could it be? It sounds right! It must be! Let's include it. Yes!_

BUt on the other hand it is the voice of moderation, temperance and respect in your post that speaks more loudly than the content. Thank you!

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Closed, we believe, by the authority of God Himself. Read Revelation a bit more carefully, my friend.
> 
> We believe that the Spirit guided the canonization of the Bible. Frankly, there is nothing that could really be added and make a significant difference in our understanding of Christ without also changing the very nature of the faith, which would, therefore, have to be rejected. We believe what we believe, and we therefore believe that departures from the faith are errors.
> 
> Hmm... So Christ would have more sayings, probably just the same as the ones contained in the Gospels? Fascinating.


And what pray tell, guides the "we [who] believe that the Spirit guided the canonization of the Bible"? It is an infinite regress with you, isn't it? "Frankly, there is nothing that could really be added and make a significant difference in our understanding of Christ without also changing the very nature of the faith, which would, therefore, have to be rejected."

It is your mind(s) then that has been closed, more surely than the Canon? I understand you to be saying that if some document were to be found, that honest, open-minded men and women recognized to be the indisputable record of hitherto unknown words of Christ, you'd reject it out of hand?

Why do you bother to post on here then, inviting people to have dialogue with you when no true dialogue is possible? This is like a stone wall offering itself to the wind that the wind may batter itself against it, seeking in vain for entry.

----------


## Granny5

I wonder why the Book of Thomas or the Book of Mary isn't included in the KJV? Were the writers not guided by the Spirit or were the folks deciding what would be included not guided by the Spirit?

----------


## kiobe

> And what pray tell, guides the "we [who] believe that the Spirit guided the canonization of the Bible"? It is an infinite regress with you, isn't it? "Frankly, there is nothing that could really be added and make a significant difference in our understanding of Christ without also changing the very nature of the faith, which would, therefore, have to be rejected."
> 
> It is your mind(s) then that has been closed, more surely than the Canon? I understand you to be saying that if some document were to be found, that honest, open-minded men and women recognized to be the indisputable record of hitherto unknown words of Christ, you'd reject it out of hand?
> 
> Why do you bother to post on here then, inviting people to have dialogue with you when no true dialogue is possible? This is like a stone wall offering itself to the wind that the wind may batter itself against it, seeking in vain for entry.



Repeat post

----------


## kiobe

> Closed, we believe, by the authority of God Himself. Read Revelation a bit more carefully, my friend.
> 
> We believe that the Spirit guided the canonization of the Bible. Frankly, there is nothing that could really be added and make a significant difference in our understanding of Christ without also changing the very nature of the faith, which would, therefore, have to be rejected. We believe what we believe, and we therefore believe that departures from the faith are errors.
> 
> Hmm... So Christ would have more sayings, probably just the same as the ones contained in the Gospels? Fascinating.


Canon means a rule of measure. In the sense of the Christian Bible, it means those books deemed divinely inspired, and to Roman Catholics, a partial rule of faith and morals. Canonical books are divided into two classes: protocanonical, those deemed inspired; and deuterocanonical, those denied or doubted by some as being inspired. In the Old Testament, the deuterocanonical books are the apocrypha; in the New Testament, the deuterocanonical books are Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, Jude, and the Book of Revelations. The Roman Catholic Church has declared all these books to be protocanonical; but some Catholic and non-Catholic scholars have different opinions on the matter. It was only at the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholic Church finally declared the Catholic Canon di fide [closed].

There is little doubt that the concept of the canon was around in Contantine's time. In Eusebius' History of the Church, he divided scripture into three categories, basing their value, or truthfulness, on how commonly used they were by Orthodox teachers -- whom he never identifies.

----------


## weepingforloman

> And what pray tell, guides the "we [who] believe that the Spirit guided the canonization of the Bible"? It is an infinite regress with you, isn't it? "Frankly, there is nothing that could really be added and make a significant difference in our understanding of Christ without also changing the very nature of the faith, which would, therefore, have to be rejected."


We have faith. We do not need someone to seize us by the hand. I mean that we believe God did not allow the decisions made to be harmful to His Word. I am a Calvinist, I believe in the sovereign power of God, and this would clearly fall under that category.




> It is your mind(s) then that has been closed, more surely than the Canon? I understand you to be saying that if some document were to be found, that honest, open-minded men and women recognized to be the indisputable record of hitherto unknown words of Christ, you'd reject it out of hand?


No, I mean only that the Quelle, if it exists, would contain exactly the same sort of statements made by Christ in the Gospels. And, if it did not, I would doubt its validity.




> Why do you bother to post on here then, inviting people to have dialogue with you when no true dialogue is possible? This is like a stone wall offering itself to the wind that the wind may batter itself against it, seeking in vain for entry.


I am here primarily to sharpen my reason, and to practice for face-to-face discussion, and I consider it my duty to have my mind and apology in fighting trim. I am here also for the chance that someone will reveal more of God to me, not that someone could persuade me to give up my faith. I actually adhere to a creed (Calvinism again) that maintains that that is impossible. A doctrine called Perseverance of the Saints is worth your time in researching.

----------


## Dark Star

> It is your mind(s) then that has been closed, more surely than the Canon? I understand you to be saying that if some document were to be found, that honest, open-minded men and women recognized to be the indisputable record of hitherto unknown words of Christ, you'd reject it out of hand?


Such a document has been found. It's the Gospel of Thomas which is a 'sayings' gospel of Jesus that is the earliest known Gospel dating back 15-20 years prior to the canonical ones.

----------


## MaryLupin

> Such a document has been found. It's the Gospel of Thomas which is a 'sayings' gospel of Jesus that is the earliest known Gospel dating back 15-20 years prior to the canonical ones.



Yes Dark Star, but the point is will it be accepted as canon? And what about the Gospel of Mary? And the others?

----------


## Dark Star

My point is that such a document exists and still won't be accepted as canon (and wasn't back then), proving the point PrinceMyshkin was trying to make.

----------


## weepingforloman

> I wonder why the Book of Thomas or the Book of Mary isn't included in the KJV? Were the writers not guided by the Spirit or were the folks deciding what would be included not guided by the Spirit?


Um, no. Those books are not deemed to be divinely inspired. I don't see your point. That's why they're not in the Bible. 




> Yes Dark Star, but the point is will it be accepted as canon? And what about the Gospel of Mary? And the others?


No, it will not be accepted as canon. The original canon was formed of books that were believed to fall into a specific set of beliefs. The equivalent would be if everyone in the world was allowed to write a science textbook. The ones that were full of ideas like lunar cheese or a geocentric universe would undoubtedly be thrown out.

----------


## Redzeppelin

*Criteria for cannonized books of the Bible:*

1. Apostolic origin (written by an apostle or an associate who preserved apostle's teaching).

2. Book needed to be written during the "apostolic age" - the time when the apostles were still alive (ending withe the Apostle John's death in the late 90s).

3. Generally accepted by the church and in continuous use in worships services.

4. Books had to cohere and agree with accepted and undisputed Scripture.

5. Must be inspired by God; must display a self-evidencing quality and power to transform lives.

Note: the vast majority of the New Testament can be reconstructed on quotes from the church fathers alone.

----------


## Granny5

Thomas was an Aspotle. Mary was close to Christ and some believe to have been an Aspotle and a leader in the beginnings of the Church. Who made the decission as to what was or was not to be included and what was divinely inspired? The Church? I have always believed that there was some self-interest involved in the decissions made back then and that if one wanted to know the whole story, read what they (the leaders of the early church) didn't want the masses to read. There is no such thing as too much knowledge or information when it comes to Christ.

----------


## weepingforloman

The point is that Thomas is believed NOT to have written the Gospel of Thomas. And Mary was NOT an apostle. The Gnostics believe she was, and Dan Brown does too, but he makes crap up. Don't be suckered. They're not accurate, true, divinely inspired, or helpful to understand Christ.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Thomas was an Aspotle. Mary was close to Christ and some believe to have been an Aspotle and a leader in the beginnings of the Church. Who made the decission as to what was or was not to be included and what was divinely inspired? The Church? I have always believed that there was some self-interest involved in the decissions made back then and that if one wanted to know the whole story, read what they (the leaders of the early church) didn't want the masses to read. There is no such thing as too much knowledge or information when it comes to Christ.


True, but if you read the criteria above, the church fathers had a pretty stringent list of requirements. The books not included did not meet the established criteria; many were written well past the apostolic age (some as late as the middle ages) and most of them are clearly legendary/heretical in nature.

Besides that, the "self-interest" comment - while it may be somewhat valid - bypasses the idea that the mighty Being that assembled the universe _out of His very words_ was probably quite able to make sure that the essential books got cannonized. After creation, everything else is like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

----------


## Dark Star

> The point is that Thomas is believed NOT to have written the Gospel of Thomas. And Mary was NOT an apostle. The Gnostics believe she was, and Dan Brown does too, but he makes crap up. Don't be suckered. They're not accurate, true, divinely inspired, or helpful to understand Christ.


And the four Canonical gospels are NOT believed by any serious scholars to have been written by the people with their name on them (Mark, Luke, etc.) so what difference does it make that Thomas didn't write the gospel of Thomas?

In regards to it not being divinely inspired -- come on now, we're heading toward 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?' territory.

----------


## Dark Star

> 2. Book needed to be written during the "apostolic age" - the time when the apostles were still alive (ending withe the Apostle John's death in the late 90s).


We have records that point out how long the life span of the apostles was? I'm not aware of these, so could you provide some more detail?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> We have records that point out how long the life span of the apostles was? I'm not aware of these, so could you provide some more detail?


I cannot give you sources, but the apostles had followers - some of which who became early church fathers and it is quite reasonable that the passing of those who actually _knew_ Jesus would have been noteworthy enough to record.

----------


## Dorian Gray

Why does it end? They ran out of miracles.

----------


## MaryLupin

> No, I mean only that the Quelle, if it exists, would contain exactly the same sort of statements made by Christ in the Gospels. And, if it did not, I would doubt its validity.


So, in other words, if Q is found it will only be considered the "real" Q if it says what you think it should? What if it repeats the stories you accept as the real word of god and then goes on to say..."After having risen from the cross, Jesus went out and got himself a wife, had a bunch of kids and died worshiping Ashtoreth and did the women of his lineage. In this he showed the true..." In or out?

----------


## Dark Star

> I cannot give you sources, but the apostles had followers - some of which who became early church fathers and it is quite reasonable that the passing of those who actually _knew_ Jesus would have been noteworthy enough to record.


So, are you basing this off of an assumption that this was recorded or is there a source for this that you read in the past that you can't recall offhand? I'm curious how you know when the date of the final apostle's passing was...in particular since dying in the 90-100 CE range would have made him pretty damn old.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> So, are you basing this off of an assumption that this was recorded or is there a source for this that you read in the past that you can't recall offhand? I'm curious how you know when the date of the final apostle's passing was...in particular since dying in the 90-100 CE range would have made him pretty damn old.


The number is based on scholarship's estimation based upon the contents of the books John wrote, his age at the time of his time spent with Christ and statements of later church historians. We do not have an exact date - but it is fairly certain that John was dead by the mid to late 90s. We know when plenty of ancient people of significance died - I don't see why one would be skeptical about the dates of death for men associated with the Son of God. Their passing would have been noted by all of Christendom.

----------


## Vittoria666

> What post?


this post: 
Originally Posted by weepingforloman 
I would say it seems unrealistic that by some trillionth chance the right bodies of matter collided and produced the physical universe, and by a billionth chance the right chemicals formed the sun, thereby pulling the solar system into place, and by some billionth of a billionth chance the right climate, chemicals, and conditions existed on one planet, and somehow (inexplicably) this thing we call "life" (we don't know what actually animates matter) really did appear, and that by some millionth chance the first organism survived long enough to reproduce, and that organism by a trillionth-trillionth chance genetically mutated and still managed to survive, and so on. Realistically, can an organism even survive significant mutation? 

I think it is unrealistic that this creature called Man evolved from the basest of beings: a.) morality/conciousness-where'd it come from? What's the gene for moral conduct? b.) that the many parts of man's physical were evolved (unless an organism got all the parts of the eye right on one shot-retina, cornea, iris, pupil, rods, cones, etc., it wouldn't work) c). that an organism with all these attributes somehow found one with the same attributes, they mated and thrived and d.) that mankind, if a merely evolutive anomaly, managed to survive with so few natural, physical gifts and talents.

What is unrealistic now?"

what do you find unrealistic? i asked you to explain point d

----------


## weepingforloman

> So, are you basing this off of an assumption that this was recorded or is there a source for this that you read in the past that you can't recall offhand? I'm curious how you know when the date of the final apostle's passing was...in particular since dying in the 90-100 CE range would have made him pretty damn old.


John was a teenager in the thirties. So he'd be around eighty in the nineties. And don't bother telling me about the life expectancy of Palestinians at the time, if you lived until adulthood you'd live (more than likely) just as long a life as now.



> So, in other words, if Q is found it will only be considered the "real" Q if it says what you think it should? What if it repeats the stories you accept as the real word of god and then goes on to say..."After having risen from the cross, Jesus went out and got himself a wife, had a bunch of kids and died worshiping Ashtoreth and did the women of his lineage. In this he showed the true..." In or out?


Ah, this one's going to make your day. Given the tradition of John Calvin, who taught that human wisdom was to be subverted to the word of God, I would say that the quasi-biblical Q would fall before the truth I know now.

----------


## Dark Star

That idea about adulthood is not true; without modern medicine you could still easily die from sickness as an adult. As far as I know at that time period you were an old man if you made it to forty.

Since I've yet to meet a scholar that literally believes the names on the Gospels are from the people who wrote them (the opposite tends to be accepted) I have no reason to believe that man happened to live until that time and wrote it, despite how uncommon that is when we can't even find a single source (outside of the four gospels of the Bible) that references his life, much less the time of his death.

----------


## Granny5

I am a Christian but I still have free will. I find it very hard to accept anything just because the powers that be here on earth tell me I should accept it and not question any of it. Isn't that what the German people did before WW II? If we stop questioning and stop looking for truth anywhere it can be found, then we give up our free will. Being a Christian, I cannot and will not give up the unending search for truth and knowledge. So just because the early church leaders decided that there was enough in what we call the Bible, doesn't mean we shouldn't look to what they left out in what possible could be the Bible.

----------


## amanda_isabel

even the most meaningful of messages has to have an end.. otherwise people would just get bored or so.. besides, it gives readers a chance to reflect on the scripture and apply it..

if the Bible were any longer then i don't think people would be too pleased.. things would just be a repetition of things..

----------


## Whifflingpin

"So just because the early church leaders decided that there was enough in what we call the Bible, doesn't mean we shouldn't look to what they left out in what possible could be the Bible."

Well, I think it's a matter of definition. What was agreed to be included in the Bible is what Christians are bound to base their faith on, and what non-Christians may judge Christianity on. 

There is no reason why any Christian should not learn from other sources - Aristotle, for example, was highly regarded by Christian thinkers for centuries. However, Christians are not bound to consider any non-canonical sources, and non-Christians cannot use non-canonical writings to make any judgements about Christianity.

----------


## weepingforloman

> this post: 
> Originally Posted by weepingforloman 
> I would say it seems unrealistic that by some trillionth chance the right bodies of matter collided and produced the physical universe, and by a billionth chance the right chemicals formed the sun, thereby pulling the solar system into place, and by some billionth of a billionth chance the right climate, chemicals, and conditions existed on one planet, and somehow (inexplicably) this thing we call "life" (we don't know what actually animates matter) really did appear, and that by some millionth chance the first organism survived long enough to reproduce, and that organism by a trillionth-trillionth chance genetically mutated and still managed to survive, and so on. Realistically, can an organism even survive significant mutation? 
> 
> I think it is unrealistic that this creature called Man evolved from the basest of beings: a.) morality/conciousness-where'd it come from? What's the gene for moral conduct? b.) that the many parts of man's physical were evolved (unless an organism got all the parts of the eye right on one shot-retina, cornea, iris, pupil, rods, cones, etc., it wouldn't work) c). that an organism with all these attributes somehow found one with the same attributes, they mated and thrived and d.) that mankind, if a merely evolutive anomaly, managed to survive with so few natural, physical gifts and talents.
> 
> What is unrealistic now?"
> 
> what do you find unrealistic? i asked you to explain point d


I mean that humans are not particularly strong compared to the animals, particularly fast compared to the animals, that they do not have particularly honed senses compared to the animals, and that the average human is probably not intelligent or inventive enough to have developed means to survive the dangers of the wild in a totally blank society. You may argue that _homo sapiens sapiens_ is too brainy to have died out. Well, the current evolutionary theory maintains that humans existed before _homo sapiens_. Could a creature with the same basic physical gifts as modern humans, and the brains of a hyper-intelligent ape (I refer to the hominids: _homo habilis, homo erectus, austrolipithicus afarensis_) survive in the wild? I doubt it. I see the work of providence in the survival and eventual reign of mankind.

----------


## weepingforloman

> I am a Christian but I still have free will. I find it very hard to accept anything just because the powers that be here on earth tell me I should accept it and not question any of it. Isn't that what the German people did before WW II? If we stop questioning and stop looking for truth anywhere it can be found, then we give up our free will. Being a Christian, I cannot and will not give up the unending search for truth and knowledge. So just because the early church leaders decided that there was enough in what we call the Bible, doesn't mean we shouldn't look to what they left out in what possible could be the Bible.


Why call yourself a Christian if you doubt the very source of our entire theology? If you are a Christian, you must be trusting to the sacrifice of Christ to redeem you. If you are, what reason do you have outside of trusting the Scriptures? And if you don't trust the Scriptures, where do you get the basis for such a trust in Christ?

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> The number is based on scholarship's estimation based upon the contents of the books John wrote, his age at the time of his time spent with Christ and statements of later church historians. We do not have an exact date - but it is fairly certain that John was dead by the mid to late 90s. We know when plenty of ancient people of significance died - I don't see why one would be skeptical about the dates of death for men associated with the Son of God. Their passing would have been noted by all of Christendom.


These and many other questions are dealt with in "The Bible and Christianity - The Historical Origins" on http://www.bidstrup.com/

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I am a Christian but I still have free will. I find it very hard to accept anything just because the powers that be here on earth tell me I should accept it and not question any of it. Isn't that what the German people did before WW II? If we stop questioning and stop looking for truth anywhere it can be found, then we give up our free will. Being a Christian, I cannot and will not give up the unending search for truth and knowledge. So just because the early church leaders decided that there was enough in what we call the Bible, doesn't mean we shouldn't look to what they left out in what possible could be the Bible.


Bravo! and you might be fascinated by "The Bible and Christianity - The Historical Origins" on http://www.bidstrup.com/

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> But when history actually reveals that Jesus existed and that the gospels are accurate then you have to choose.


If by history you mean records and archeological findings from that time, there is very little evidence that Jesus DID exist and much less that his story is as reported in the gospels. See "The Bible and Christianity - The Historical Origins" on http://www.bidstrup.com/

----------


## Noisms

> I mean that humans are not particularly strong compared to the animals, particularly fast compared to the animals, that they do not have particularly honed senses compared to the animals, and that the average human is probably not intelligent or inventive enough to have developed means to survive the dangers of the wild in a totally blank society. You may argue that _homo sapiens sapiens_ is too brainy to have died out. Well, the current evolutionary theory maintains that humans existed before _homo sapiens_. Could a creature with the same basic physical gifts as modern humans, and the brains of a hyper-intelligent ape (I refer to the hominids: _homo habilis, homo erectus, austrolipithicus afarensis_) survive in the wild? I doubt it. I see the work of providence in the survival and eventual reign of mankind.


There are three answers to that. Firstly, early hominids probably couldn't have survived on their own. The point is that they didn't: they were group animals who lived in bands like modern wolves or chimpanzees, and as such were able to cooperate with each other to hunt, forage and bring up young. 

Secondly, you're wrong that early hominids were physically weak or inferior to other animals. They were much stronger than modern humans (chimpanzees are some four times stronger than we are; while we can't expect early hominids to have been as strong as a chimpanzee, they were certainly more powerful than us - being halfway back on the branch to the ancestors we have in common with chimpanzees). They also had the massive advantage that we also have - bipedalism. If you're a biped, and physically fit, you can run for incredible distances before you grow tired. This, coupled with early hominid's co-operative and tool-making skills, made them formidable hunters.

Thirdly, you're ignoring the most obvious point that in our own recent history and condition - not particularly strong, or fast, or with as honed senses as other animals - we lived as hunter-gatherers in "the wild" in exactly the situation you describe, and survived very well. Some peoples still do! I'd be interested in how you explain your argument to a San Bushman, for example.

----------


## Noisms

> b.) that the many parts of man's physical were evolved (unless an organism got all the parts of the eye right on one shot-retina, cornea, iris, pupil, rods, cones, etc., it wouldn't work)


This is one of my pet hates when it comes to arguments against evolution. It absolutely is *not* the case that "unless an organism got all parts of the eye right in one shot, it wouldn't work" - to paraphrase Richard Dawkins, if you live in a world in which there are no organisms with eyes, even the most rudimentary organ which can tell you the direction in which light is coming from is a huge advantage. That's how eyes got their start - a very small random mutation that allowed laughably poor 'vision', but which (literally) was better than nothing.

Next time you get the chance, ask an 80 year old with dreadful cataracts if he or she would rather have the rudimentary, barely functioning vision he or she has now, or no eye at all.

----------


## weepingforloman

> There are three answers to that. Firstly, early hominids probably couldn't have survived on their own. The point is that they didn't: they were group animals who lived in bands like modern wolves or chimpanzees, and as such were able to cooperate with each other to hunt, forage and bring up young. 
> 
> Secondly, you're wrong that early hominids were physically weak or inferior to other animals. They were much stronger than modern humans (chimpanzees are some four times stronger than we are; while we can't expect early hominids to have been as strong as a chimpanzee, they were certainly more powerful than us - being halfway back on the branch to the ancestors we have in common with chimpanzees). They also had the massive advantage that we also have - bipedalism. If you're a biped, and physically fit, you can run for incredible distances before you grow tired. This, coupled with early hominid's co-operative and tool-making skills, made them formidable hunters.
> 
> Thirdly, you're ignoring the most obvious point that in our own recent history and condition - not particularly strong, or fast, or with as honed senses as other animals - we lived as hunter-gatherers in "the wild" in exactly the situation you describe, and survived very well. Some peoples still do! I'd be interested in how you explain your argument to a San Bushman, for example.


My point, if you read the entire post, was that I see providence in the survival of man. I am willing, if it is ever proved to me, to accept evolution. I do not deny the possibility of hominids ever existing. But, if I were to accept their existence, I would place providence as foremost among their reasons for surviving.

----------


## weepingforloman

> This is one of my pet hates when it comes to arguments against evolution. It absolutely is *not* the case that "unless an organism got all parts of the eye right in one shot, it wouldn't work" - to paraphrase Richard Dawkins, if you live in a world in which there are no organisms with eyes, even the most rudimentary organ which can tell you the direction in which light is coming from is a huge advantage. That's how eyes got their start - a very small random mutation that allowed laughably poor 'vision', but which (literally) was better than nothing.
> 
> Next time you get the chance, ask an 80 year old with dreadful cataracts if he or she would rather have the rudimentary, barely functioning vision he or she has now, or no eye at all.


Would the retina function independently of all else? Would the cornea? The rods and cones? No. And I don't think primitive eyespots would be capable of instantaneously transforming into, say, a basic eyeball. Well, transforming is the wrong term, but you know what I mean: going from eyespot to eyeball in one generation.

----------


## Dark Star

Would they function independently as they are now? No. But that's not how things work.

It's more like this: Object A develops (evolves). It works on it's own in a very limited function. Later, Object B develops and also provides limited function. Over time, the two become interdependent and function more effectively. Then, Object C develops....and so on and so forth. Mind you, this is a very simplistic example but it should get the general idea across.

----------


## Noisms

> My point, if you read the entire post, was that I see providence in the survival of man. I am willing, if it is ever proved to me, to accept evolution. I do not deny the possibility of hominids ever existing. But, if I were to accept their existence, I would place providence as foremost among their reasons for surviving.


No, I got your point. I was demonstrating that survival of man doesn't require providence. Quite the opposite: 'man' is extremely well adapted to survive.

----------


## Noisms

> Would the retina function independently of all else? Would the cornea? The rods and cones? No. And I don't think primitive eyespots would be capable of instantaneously transforming into, say, a basic eyeball. Well, transforming is the wrong term, but you know what I mean: going from eyespot to eyeball in one generation.


Well, I'm basically just repeating Dark Star a post or two above: nobody's suggesting that it went "from eyespot to eyeball in one generation". Nor is anybody saying that there was a retina, then a cornea, then rods and cones, and it all came together and worked. 

What we're saying is that there was an extremely tiny, rudimentary development that allowed an organism (possibly a single-celled one) to 'see' in the very crudest sense of the word - it could sense the direction of light. (Some single celled organisms around today can do that.) That gave it an advantage over all the other organisms around at that time, because none of those had that trick. From that humble beginning the eye slowly developed by increments - becoming perhaps more accurate at sensing the direction of light, then later being able to sense changes in the consistency of light so that it could tell when another organism moved nearby. And so on.

(I also have to point out that there are lots of different kinds of eyes in the animal world. The human eye's development was almost certainly completely different to the development of octopus vision, for example.)

----------


## Pendragon

Interesting scripture: St. John 21: [25] And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen

I suppose my real question would be, if every believer wrote down his or her experiences over the centuries, not just a select few, how large would the Bible be?

God Bless

Pen

----------


## JesusFrk

The Bible is the book of life. It has EVERYTHING we need know for life. If you have read the Bible all the way through, then you will notice that it tells you everything from beginning to end the of time. It doesnt end if you think about it, becuase we are still living out the things that were written, if that makes and sence :S the Bible tells us what will happen in the future, if there was anything else he wanted us to know, then he would have it in there. 
Sorry if it sounds like this doesnt make sence at all, I know what I want to say, but its hard to put it into words :S

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> The Bible is the book of life. It has EVERYTHING we need know for life. If you have read the Bible all the way through, then you will notice that it tells you everything from beginning to end the of time. It doesnt end if you think about it, becuase we are still living out the things that were written, if that makes and sence :S the Bible tells us what will happen in the future, if there was anything else he wanted us to know, then he would have it in there. 
> Sorry if it sounds like this doesnt make sence at all, I know what I want to say, but its hard to put it into words :S


If you have trouble putting it into words, perhaps the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden could help you out?

----------


## Son of Belial

I don't find anything in the Bible about Molecular Biology or Quantum Physics or Geology (unless you count the creation of Adam from mud). In fact there is very little in the Bible that addresses the majority of scientific and medical discoveries in the last few centuries. Indeed, many of those discoveries directly contradict the popular teachings of the various holy books throughout the world. From Galileo to today, history is replete with examples of real life, tangible, discoveries that fly in the face of popular religious dogma.

It's simply incorrect to argue that the Bible has "EVERYTHING we need [to] know for life" unless we want to live life as blind men.

----------


## Bookworm4Him

Did you know the Bible talks about the earth being round, even though back then the earth was still considered flat? And there being an innumerable number of stars, when we only could see a few with the naked eye, way before telescopes were invented. Maybe they're there, and you just missed them.  :Smile:

----------


## Son of Belial

First of all, the obscure reference to a round earth (Isaiah 40:22) is hardly sufficient proof that the writers were settled on that question. There was still a debate about the earth's shape that included a flat surface with a "round" dome which could explain the reference in Isaiah.

Maybe the references are there. I've read the bible and numerous treatments of it. If there are references to the many scientific discoveries made in the last few hundred years, they are too obscure to be of any value. It seems profoundly irrelevant to me if god did talk about quantum physics in a way that we can't see or relate to. What good does it do us?

----------


## weepingforloman

I find it interesting that, earlier, you lumped quantum physics, molecular biology, etc. in with "things we need to live." People survived for a very long time without even the rudiments of modern science. Understanding of our own biology and of theoretical physics is not necessary at all.

----------


## Son of Belial

This from "The End of the World: A History" by O. Friedrich, as quoted by Sam Harris in "The End of Faith":

"The amazing pestilence reached Paris that June [of 1348], and it was to afflict the city for a year and a half. . . .
King Philip [VI] asked the medical faculty of the University of Paris for an explanation of the disaster. The professors reported that a disturbance in teh skies had caused the sun to overheat the oceans near India, and the waters had begun to give off noxious vapors. The medical faculty offered a variety of remedies. Broth would help, for example, if seasoned with ground pepper, ginger, and cloves. Poultry, water fowl, young pork and fatty meat in general were to be avoided. Olive oil could be fatal. Bathing was dangerous, but enemas could be helpful. "Men must preserve chastity" the doctors warned, "if they value their lives."
The King still worried about the divine wrath. he issued an edict against blasphemy. For the first offense, the blasphemer's lip would be cut off; a second offense would cost him the other lip, and a third the tongue. . . .
The town authorities reacted with a series of stern measures to halt the spreading panic. They ordered the tolling of the bells to cease. They outlawed the wearing of black clothing. They forbade the gathering of more than two people at a funeral, or any display of grief in public. And to placate the angry God who had brought this affliction, they banned all work after noon on Saturdays, all gambling and swearing, and they demanded that everyone living in sin get married immediately. Li Muisis [an abbot of Tournai] recorded happily that the number of marriages increased considerably, profanity was no longer heard, and gambling declined so much that the makers of dice turned to making rosaries. He also recorded that in this newly virtuous place 25,000 citizens died of the plague and were buried in large pits on the outskirts of the town."


Harris goes on to say:

"Where did the religious beliefs of these people leave off and their worldly beliefs begin? Can there be any doubt that the beleagured Christians of the fourteenth century were longing for knowledge (that is, beliefs that are both true and valid) about the plague, about its cause and mode of transmission, and hoping, thereby, to find an effective means by which to combat it? Was their reliance upon the tenets of faith enforced by anything but the starkest ignorance? If it had been known, for instance, that this pestilence was being delivered by merchant ships - that rats were climbing ashore from every hold and that upon each rat were legions of fleas carrying the plague bacillus - would the faithful have thought their energies best spent cutting the tongues out of blasphemers, silencing bells, dressing in bright colors, and making liberal use of enemas? A sure way to win an argument with these unhappy people would have been with penicillin, delivered...from a land...higher up on the slopes of the real."

I submit that understanding of our biology, geology, history, cosmos, etc. is EXACTLY necessary. It is, and was, our ignorance of these matters that laid the groundwork for the fantastical "faiths" that plague the world today and lead to actions like we saw on September 11, 2001.

----------


## catharsis

Well...the Bible is a essentially a Novel of Truth, so to say. It'a ironic isn't it. A novel of truth. Like all books, it must have an ending.

----------

