I'm sure they were written and then compiled into a PDF, digitally signed by Matt, J, Marky Mark, and Skywalker.
FORGIVE ME FOR ASSUMPTION: but as i am faithful about God, i perceive you are faithful the other way in regards to the Bible. i do believe there are other books which can help us understand who Jesus was. i do not believe the Acts of Phillip is one of those, by the way. but i get the sense that any reasonable inference that there was any integrity to the compilation of the Bible is dismissed by you, outright. I question a good deal of the Bible. I'm confused and put-off by sermons that try to paint it as an idol...or as some sort of operator's manual for life. I disagree with the assertion that Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews, and I know that upsets a lot of believers. But I think there are legit concerns with including books that are written 300-400 years after Christ's death and resurrection. i think there are serious concerns with including books that weren't shared by most churches. we have no indication, for example, that the Council of Nicea even had the Acts of Phillip in to consider for canonization. The Bible isn't perfect. I do believe it's God-inspired...and I believe it's purpose is to communicate man's relationship with God. The God-inspired part is based in my faith. the other part is based on my reading of it...not as one coherent book...but rather as a collection of poems, letters and accounts.
Not dismissed off hand, no. But seriously questionable, yes. I believe that prior to Constantine's acceptance and the council of Nicea there were many types of christianity, and I believe like any war,....the winner of the war gets to write the history, and I think that is exactly what happened at the Nicea council, those that were closest to what Constantine believed....IE the power at the time, got to help make the rules and decisions. For example many early Christian churches allowed women to have a prominent role, since the Nicea council their role was significantly lessoned due to politics. I believe the current edition of the bible to be less than factual, less than historic and based HIGHLY upon the politics of the 4th century when it was compiled and approved. Max, I find you one of the most reasonable people on this board, and I appreciate your faith. I don't understand it, but I can apprecaite it. My issue deals primarily with politics and how they shape religion, in my mind it is clear that the bible was written by men, and then EDITED by men with political agendas..... Just my .02. DD
Me too, but it depends on "How" you are reading it. I read the new testement as a book about a group of people who started a religion and that the book was shaped by the political powers in the 4th centuray AD. The old testement I take to be a bunch of stories passed down for ages.....more mythos than anything else. By the way, you like reading it because you had a "calling" right? Any luck at getting God to give NewPlayer a ring? DD
fair enough. by the way...the Bible, as it is RIGHT NOW, is interpreted by many to support the idea that women were leaders in the early church. you don't have to look far into Acts to realize that. people have bastardized the text to create a religion...no doubt about that. but that's not what i worship. that's not my God. and that's not how I filter the text or the documents that didn't "make the cut." and i'm sad that others have read it in such a way as to keep you and others a step away from finding God. again...that statement comes entirely from my own assumptions and understanding about who God is.
one more thing: 1. the OT is more than just a collection of story...there's prophecy as well. a fair amount of that prophecy seems to foreshadow Jesus. i think a lot of the OT is metaphor. i don't believe the Bible is a science text. Jesus taught in parable...I think God might have, too. but there is clearly archaelogical evidence to suggest that there are truths there...not just spiritual truths; 2. people thought, like you, that the text must have been manipulated. that the Book of Isaiah in particular was just too convenient for Christians, so it must have been edited to create the story. but then they dug up the Dead Sea Scrolls...and most of those are just commentary...like Bible study notes in the margins of the scripture. and there were a few copies of Isaiah in that cave...which date to before Christ....and the Isaiah texts read like the one that's situated in the Bible that's sitting on my desk right now. there was no manipulation of that text.
Max.....you are talking about ONE book of many....and there were many destroyed forever on the orders of the church leaders and many others left out of the bible becuase of Politics. Look, we are not going to agree..... DD
yeah, i was just talking about the OT text. i realize we're not gonna agree. i just hear you say things like, "well it was all political...all manipulated...all these books got left out." but the books you're talking about....though they might evidence different traditions...don't change the story signficantly. they still claim there was this man/spirit who lived among us who pointed us to God...who was crucified and resurrected...who changed the world. there is general agreement on these concepts. again, I would argue that the Gospel of John is every bit a gnostic gospel as Thomas. "i am in the Father...you are in me..." etc. there are sects of Christianity today....people who do all sorts of different things in the name of Jesus. violence has been perpetrated in his name. there are "straggler books" all over the place. one book talks about weird sexual rituals. but it's the only one that really goes there...so do we give it equal credence to the Gospel of Thomas, for example? but at some point, all these texts point to him as authority...even if it's authority for something i would look at as strange or peculiar. but the central theme is love God...love your neighbor as much as you love yourself. i'm dogmatic about that much, for sure.
You are welcome. Just because I don't necessarily believe in the stories or the book, I certainly believe in the main theme and message. DD
MadMax - I like your sig quote.. I used a story by him a few weeks ago in a message. Durocher was a baseball manager right? And by the way I had this graphic up on our site back in the fall...
yeah, he was an Adam Everett-esque SS....but is none most for his managing. managed the Astros back in the 70's. what church are you involved with? what capacity again?
