Origins of our Bible

[PJM]

=joeNJ;9342371]Does the origins of how are Bible was formed disturb anyone? The fact that men gathered, generations after Jesus was crucified, and picked which documents were included and which were excluded really bothers me?

No and here’s why…

1. God; both Yahweh and Christ always insisted and taught:
   Only One God
   Only One set of Faith beliefs and Only One chosen people [today’s CC which existed more than 1,000 years before Protestantism]
2. Only Peter and todays CC were given the Key’s to heaven
   AND the Mandate to Teach the ENTIRE WORLD:

Mt.16: 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” …** Mt.28:16-20 "Matt.28 Verses 16 to 20** "Now the eleven Apostles went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

And ONLY the CC has Christ as its warranty of teaching the Complete Truth totally:

**John.14: 26 **“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” …John 20: 22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit”. And John 17:18-19 "As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. [MEANS WITH GODS OWN POWERS AND AUTHORITY] And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.

IN CONCLUSION THE APOSTLES WERE

Chosen by God
Commanded to do it by God
Protected by God

1. Only the CC who “birthed the bible” guided by the HS; and AUTHORED the ENTIRE NT; can BY God’s choice give a accurate and full translation of the Bible in fulfilling God’s MANDATE

God Bless you, and pray for Faith and Understanding,

pat/PJM

 

[Gaber]

What do you mean?

Are you omniscient? Do you, or does anyone know even all that is humanly possible to know? Are there things, ideas, techniques, dynamics tha apply to your situation that you simply may not be aware of through ignorance, incomplete teaching, or exclsion by acceping a limited/limiting paradigm? Do you mistake knowing your particular faith for universally applicable knowledge? Etc. cubed. That’s what I mean.

 

[Phyllo]

Are you omniscient? Do you, or does anyone know even all that is humanly possible to know? Are there things, ideas, techniques, dynamics tha apply to your situation that you simply may not be aware of through ignorance, incomplete teaching, or exclsion by acceping a limited/limiting paradigm? Do you mistake knowing your particular faith for universally applicable knowledge? Etc. cubed. That’s what I mean.

Oh

Let me just say that this is all we know now and I am not going to delve into what might or could be. And let us not derail the op thread.

 

[CalCatholic]

I understand the role faith plays and in learning about the life of Jesus. My problem is that God did not say these books/letters are my words(of course there are quotes of Gods voice in the Bible, that’s not what I’m talking about). The actions of Jesus and the reaction to his actions by those who witnessed it are what I find to be the most compelling. This is what my faith is built on. What bothers me is the human beings, not chosen by God, that selected the books and letters to be included, many written by authors who never claimed to be inspired at the time of writing it. I’m glad you can find the Bible to be the inspired words of God so easily, I struggle with that.

joeNJ, I converted to Christianity (the Catholic Church) after 47 years of having no religion in my life, so the belief in the Bible did not come quickly or easily. I like many other converts to the faith had to be convinced that the core message of the faith (the death and resurrection of Jesus) was true. So how do we learn about this core belief which is two thousand years old? The answer for me was three fold; 1) the oral tradition of the Church which has been passed down for two thousand years, 2) the New Testament which was written (some letters within 20 years of Jesus’ life), assembled and copied, and used within the liturgy of the various churches of the Catholic Church for centuries before being finalized, and 3) the writings of other Christians (especially the Early Church Fathers, Didache, etc).

joeNJ, you said, "The actions of Jesus and the reaction to his actions by those who witnessed it are what I find to be most compelling. This is what my faith is built on."
But my question to you is how did you learn of those actions of Jesus and the reaction by those who witnessed it? The only way to learn about these things is through the oral teachings (Tradition) of the Church and the Bible (the written Tradition of the Church).
Since we ourselves can’t interview eyewitnesses to Jesus’ actions on earth, we have to rely on those apostles who were eye witnesses. And how was this information faithfully passed on to us two thousand years later - the Church (through apostolic succession)! The Bible is part of this apostolic succession.

 

[PJM]

=joeNJ;9344052]Talk about blind faith, if you were around during the time of the crusades and the Popes were using their power to create armies, or condoning the Inquisition, were they inspired by the Holy Spirit? Or are you the one that knows really which one is or isn’t?

***Hey Joe,

What your missing is CRITICAL,

God ONLY Protects what the CC Teaches as necessary for Ones salvation [that means everyones] and is restricted to ALL MATTERS of Faith beliefs and Morals ONLY:thumbsup:*** [and yes this IS biblical]

God Bless you!
pat/PJM

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Gaber,

Wow! Glad we got that straight … and you did it so succinctly - with no beating around the bush…

Until your post, I was not sure what you meant … hmmmmm … still not, but I guess that is what you intended, eh?

God bless

Are you omniscient? Do you, or does anyone know even all that is humanly possible to know? Are there things, ideas, techniques, dynamics tha apply to your situation that you simply may not be aware of through ignorance, incomplete teaching, or exclsion by acceping a limited/limiting paradigm? Do you mistake knowing your particular faith for universally applicable knowledge? Etc. cubed. That’s what I mean.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PJM,

Great post!

I think the real trust issues is that either we trust God or we don’t. And, God does trust His Own Judgment on who He selects to carry His Message to others.

God bless

No and here’s why…

1. God; both Yahweh and Christ always insisted and taught:
   Only One God
   Only One set of Faith beliefs and Only One chosen people [today’s CC which existed more than 1,000 years before Protestantism]
2. Only Peter and todays CC were given the Key’s to heaven
   AND the Mandate to Teach the ENTIRE WORLD:

Mt.16: 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” …** Mt.28:16-20 "Matt.28 Verses 16 to 20** "Now the eleven Apostles went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

And ONLY the CC has Christ as its warranty of teaching the Complete Truth totally:

**John.14: 26 **“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” …John 20: 22 "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit”. And John 17:18-19 "As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. [MEANS WITH GODS OWN POWERS AND AUTHORITY] And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth.

IN CONCLUSION THE APOSTLES WERE

Chosen by God
Commanded to do it by God
Protected by God

1. Only the CC who “birthed the bible” guided by the HS; and AUTHORED the ENTIRE NT; can BY God’s choice give a accurate and full translation of the Bible in fulfilling God’s MANDATE

God Bless you, and pray for Faith and Understanding,

pat/PJM

 

[tqualey]

Hi, PJM,

Actually, it is beyond critical in the sense that without Faith, we are simply in meltdown.

While JoeNJ’s original posts made sense - his response were totally devoid of meaningful dialogue - just put-downs on those who tried to give him the information he was asking about. Then he moved into blanket criticism of the Catholic Church - and that struck me as soooooooo off topic thread, it just cried out for someone playing games.

While I do not know what the answer is… moving to “4 pitch” probably isn’t it…

I really do think this is a good thread because, as Catholics, we gave the Bible (Canon of Sacred Scriputre) to the world. One of the things I have found very interesting was that none of those in Revolt in the 16th Century succeeded in dropping any of the books of the NT - even though Luther tried pretty hard with James. Does anyone know why Luther failed here - but was able to get books removed from the OT?

God bless
God bless

***Hey Joe,

What your missing is CRITICAL,

God ONLY Protects what the CC Teaches as necessary for Ones salvation [that means everyones] and is restricted to ALL MATTERS of Faith beliefs and Morals ONLY:thumbsup:*** [and yes this IS biblical]

God Bless you!
pat/PJM

 

[johnnyjones]

What were people doing after the resurrection and all those years before a bible was there to “quote”. That thought helped me out of Fundamentalism. Yes the bible is the word of God but there are many mysteries. Some books of the bible are “attributed” to certain authors. The book of Matthew for example is attributed to him but it is not known for sure if he (the apostle) wrote it.

Many catholic turn a good portion of the OT into allegories which is something I don’t agree with… There have also been copyist errors affecting minor things but none the less errors. The Catholic church transcribed the bible. No " Protest-tant" had a hand in it. Thats big time origins.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Johnnyjones,

Those first 300+ years before we had the Canon of Sacred Scripture were rough ones, indeed. In addition to everything else - there were active and murderous persecutions run by the Roman Empire! The idea that the teachings of back-country Carpenter could carry throughout the Earth - and to do so at such a time of dictatorship and turmoil - would be just too much to believe - if were weren’t looking right at it over 2,000 years later. There is no way that a human organization could have lasted on its own - rather, what we are seeing are the Works and Fruits of the Holy Spirit.

God bless

What were people doing after the resurrection and all those years before a bible was there to “quote”. That thought helped me out of Fundamentalism. Yes the bible is the word of God but there are many mysteries. Some books of the bible are “attributed” to certain authors. The book of Matthew for example is attributed to him but it is not known for sure if he (the apostle) wrote it.

Many catholic turn a good portion of the OT into allegories which is something I don’t agree with… There have also been copyist errors affecting minor things but none the less errors. The Catholic church transcribed the bible. No " Protest-tant" had a hand in it. Thats big time origins.

 

[PJM]

=tqualey;9346370]Hi, PJM,

Great post!

I think the real trust issues is that either we trust God or we don’t. And, God does trust His Own Judgment on who He selects to carry His Message to others.

God bless

THANK YOU TOM!

The answer to the differnce in Catholism and Protestism REVOLVES around understanding Fully and correctly what “One means”

Let’s keep praying for Right Understanding,

pat/PJM

 

[De_Maria]

How about if the Church said "this is the information/letters about Jesus that we know.

That is what the Church did. Precisely.

We will follow his example and live life as Jesus wants us to live."

The Church still teaches that message.

That would not bother me.

That is what the Church did. And that message is what the Church teaches. Yet you seem to be bothered.

The Church Jesus was describing in your quote are the apostles and his followers. They listened to his request and went out to teach about Jesus. They never formed a Bible.

Correct.

They wrote letters about Jesus’ life.You are using a modern definition of Church not the one Jesus was referring to.

I use the Catholic definition of Church. But I don’t know why that makes a difference here since we are talking about the Bible.

Some of the apostles wrote letters about Jesus that were included in the Bible, but the authors never even knew their words would be included in a single document.

What makes you think they didn’t?

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

In here, St. Peter is talking about the Epistles of St. Paul. Note how he equates them with Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[tqualey]

Hi, De Maria,

I really do not think this could have been said any better!

Here is an interesting link that may be useful for anyone who is interested in the Catholic Church and the Bible: biblechristiansociety.com/apologetics/two_minute#4

God bless

That is what the Church did. Precisely.

The Church still teaches that message.

That is what the Church did. And that message is what the Church teaches. Yet you seem to be bothered.

Correct.

I use the Catholic definition of Church. But I don’t know why that makes a difference here since we are talking about the Bible.

What makes you think they didn’t?

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

In here, St. Peter is talking about the Epistles of St. Paul. Note how he equates them with Scripture.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Hi, De Maria,

I really do not think this could have been said any better! …

God bless

Thanks! God bless you as well,

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[in_servitude]

Does the origins of how are Bible was formed disturb anyone?

I am undisturbed (today).

The fact that men gathered, generations after Jesus was crucified, and picked which documents were included and which were excluded really bothers me.

Men wrote documents. Men evaluated the documents. Men determined what was in, what was out. God did not (directly) write all that much (the 10 commandments were pretty direct).

It also bothers me why the Book of Revelations was included. Was the author, John, really John the Apostle?

Why? I infer that you are bothered because the author is not explicitly named?

The choices these men made became words inspired by God, but many of the authors never even made that claim.

Your wording is very telling! The words written by men became the words inspired by God. What you are saying here is that God did not inspire the words. But, what really happened is that people wrote stuff - and then other people just marked it as inspired. Presto! It became “inspired”.

I struggle with this every day, how do you cope with this?

joeNJ, you are asking questions that get to one that I find fundamental. I have been discussing this same issue with my friends for the past few weeks. The question is, for me anyway, all about how Jesus decided to interact with humanity. It is messy, is it not? It is not clear cut, is it? God apparently **wants **us to struggle. I see in nature that growth results from the struggle. Also, when we try to grasp something simple - like a new math concept, the learning comes when we struggle through the issue. Then, mastery of the subject comes when we teach it to others.

It makes sense to me that Jesus would **not **come and go without some kind of lasting marker for his people. Why must that be in the form of a bible? To me, it makes sense that we would all be involved in learning and teaching under a singular authority.

As for the mistakes in the Church? Have you considered that Jesus selected Judas to be one of the twelve? Jesus himself made that decision. What could be worse than betraying Jesus directly? After seeing everything that he did for people? All the healing? All the signs? So, if you want to convict the entire Church because it invited some of the people that turned out to be bad actors - then I think you convict Jesus too - because he (knowingly!) invited a very bad actor.

I have noticed that when bad things happen, good can result from it. For example, when the church in Corinth was under attack by false teachers, Paul was compelled to write letters to set the record straight. The attack on the church was bad. But, we now enjoy the benefit of Paul’s writings as a direct result of those attacks. Especially in the Church, God seems to take the attacks and turn them into a large benefit.

Those are my thoughts.

 

[joeNJ]

Hi, PJM,

Actually, it is beyond critical in the sense that without Faith, we are simply in meltdown.

While JoeNJ’s original posts made sense - his response were totally devoid of meaningful dialogue - just put-downs on those who tried to give him the information he was asking about. Then he moved into blanket criticism of the Catholic Church - and that struck me as soooooooo off topic thread, it just cried out for someone playing games.

While I do not know what the answer is… moving to “4 pitch” probably isn’t it…

I really do think this is a good thread because, as Catholics, we gave the Bible (Canon of Sacred Scriputre) to the world. One of the things I have found very interesting was that none of those in Revolt in the 16th Century succeeded in dropping any of the books of the NT - even though Luther tried pretty hard with James. Does anyone know why Luther failed here - but was able to get books removed from the OT?

God bless
God bless

I’m sorry my responses didn’t meet your standard and if you look at my posts they were always in response to comments, not “off topic”. I agree Faith is important here, but for certain things, like the formation of the Bible, it has to be built on more trust than I have seen (of course that is only my opinion). Why couldn’t the accounts of Jesus’ life by the Apostles be just that. Jesus was often quoted and they were magnificent, why can’t that alone be Gods words? His words were enough to form our lives, why do we need men, appointed by men, to determine what was and was not inspired? You think I’m “playing games”, about what exactly??

My responses have been to get behind the faith, to find out if what we know is enough for you. For me it’s not so far, but I’m OK with it, because I love Jesus’ words and deeds. And that is good enough for me. But do I believe Revelations is Gods words, NO. (and in response to a prior poster as to why I singled out Revelations among all the books is; if you agree the men who compiled the Bible were inspired, then you can’t say “OK they made a mistake with this one”).

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JoeNJ,

It really isn’t a question of meeting ‘my standard’ as it is coming to a realization that God has set out a particular course - and your questions like, “Why couldn’t the accounts of Jesus’ life…” fall short of the mark when it comes to being realistic. None of us set this course - God did. As I said earlier, either we trust Him or we don’t. And, it is not like, “Well, I’ll trust this far but no farther!” Christ told us that we either accpet the Kingdom of God as a little child (total faith) or we aren’t getting in! Notice there is no grey area here - it is either you believe or you don’t - and you decide.

So, if you think that more than Faith is needed for the formation of the Bible - what are these things. What are your standards that apparently the entire Catholic Church is not meeting (after all, is the Catholic Church that gave the world the Canon of Sacred Scripture. This is the group that declared that every book and every word in every book of the Bible is the Inspired and Inerrant Word of God - and yes, JoeNJ, that would also include the Book of Revelations).

The ‘game playing’ I asked about really involves this back and forth belief/non-belief issue you have been demonstrating. Chirst did more then give us some wonderful sentences. Christ gave us His Own Church - and He promised He would not abandon it (us) and that it would not teach error. These are more than words, JoeNJ - this is a very significant deed. Christ gives us His Flesh and Blood in Holy Communion - this is more than words - this is a very significant deed - and these two elements are totally bound with one another: Christ’s Church and Christ giving us His Flesh through His Chruch. But, it looks like you want to pick and choose… and notice, Matthew 16 does not have Christ offering a ‘Cafeteria Plan’ for those who just can’t make up their minds.

All of this apparent indecision appears to hinge on ‘men’ getting together in about the 4th Century as a Church Council to develop the Canon of Scripture. Yes, it would have been a lot simpler if the Holy Spirit on Pentecost Sunday had delivered a Book in addition to the Gifts He gave those assembeled. But, it did not happen that way - and this is where we need to have Faith and believe that God really is in charge. If you are going to believe, then believe. If you are going to not believe that find an organization that conformst to your standards - but, there is no middle ground here. Really.

God bless

I’m sorry my responses didn’t meet your standard and if you look at my posts they were always in response to comments, not “off topic”. I agree Faith is important here, but for certain things, like the formation of the Bible, it has to be built on more trust than I have seen (of course that is only my opinion). Why couldn’t the accounts of Jesus’ life by the Apostles be just that. Jesus was often quoted and they were magnificent, why can’t that alone be Gods words? His words were enough to form our lives, why do we need men, appointed by men, to determine what was and was not inspired? You think I’m “playing games”, about what exactly??

My responses have been to get behind the faith, to find out if what we know is enough for you. For me it’s not so far, but I’m OK with it, because I love Jesus’ words and deeds. And that is good enough for me. But do I believe Revelations is Gods words, NO. (and in response to a prior poster as to why I singled out Revelations among all the books is; if you agree the men who compiled the Bible were inspired, then you can’t say “OK they made a mistake with this one”).

 

[PJM]

=in_servitude;9358221]I am undisturbed (today).

Men wrote documents. Men evaluated the documents. Men determined what was in, what was out. God did not (directly) write all that much (the 10 commandments were pretty direct).

Why? I infer that you are bothered because the author is not explicitly named?

Your wording is very telling! The words written by men became the words inspired by God. What you are saying here is that God did not inspire the words. But, what really happened is that people wrote stuff - and then other people just marked it as inspired. Presto! It became “inspired”.

joeNJ, you are asking questions that get to one that I find fundamental. I have been discussing this same issue with my friends for the past few weeks. The question is, for me anyway, all about how Jesus decided to interact with humanity. It is messy, is it not? It is not clear cut, is it? God apparently **wants **us to struggle. I see in nature that growth results from the struggle. Also, when we try to grasp something simple - like a new math concept, the learning comes when we struggle through the issue. Then, mastery of the subject comes when we teach it to others.

It makes sense to me that Jesus would **not **come and go without some kind of lasting marker for his people. Why must that be in the form of a bible? To me, it makes sense that we would all be involved in learning and teaching under a singular authority.

As for the mistakes in the Church? Have you considered that Jesus selected Judas to be one of the twelve? Jesus himself made that decision. What could be worse than betraying Jesus directly? After seeing everything that he did for people? All the healing? All the signs? So, if you want to convict the entire Church because it invited some of the people that turned out to be bad actors - then I think you convict Jesus too - because he (knowingly!) invited a very bad actor.

I have noticed that when bad things happen, good can result from it. For example, when the church in Corinth was under attack by false teachers, Paul was compelled to write letters to set the record straight. The attack on the church was bad. But, we now enjoy the benefit of Paul’s writings as a direct result of those attacks. Especially in the Church, God seems to take the attacks and turn them into a large benefit.

Those are my thoughts.

while god did not “author the bible” nevertheless it contain only what god wants it to contain;

2nd. Tim. 3: 16-17 “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”

IF THIS IS NOT COMPLETELY TRUE; THEN THE BIBLE IS WORTHLESS…

John.14: 26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. “ … John.20: 22 “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.” … Acts.1: 2 “until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen"

Never forget that IT IS THE MEMBERS of “Thee Church” that Sin; Mother Church CANNOT sin!

God Bless,
pat /PJM

 

[Gaber]

while god did not “author the bible” nevertheless it contain only what god wants it to contain;

2nd. Tim. 3: 16-17 “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work”

IF THIS IS NOT COMPLETELY TRUE; THEN THE BIBLE IS WORTHLESS…

John.14: 26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. “ … John.20: 22 “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.” … Acts.1: 2 “until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen"

Never forget that IT IS THE MEMBERS of “Thee Church” that Sin; Mother Church CANNOT sin!

God Bless,
pat /PJM

That is all well and good, but the kind of self verification you use as “proof” or “substantiation” is self referent at best. That is not to deny the good that can be derived from the book, if one is already “good” or has an emotional or thought conversion to the degree of accepting the collection on the terms of the “authorities” pointed to by In_servitude. I mean we had such arguments going at the time of biblical “verification” as “There are four elements and four directions, etc, so there need to be four Gospels.” Hardly “divine inspiration” or guidance by my reckoning.

And as i stated elsewhere before, any message from the “other side,” or spirit world or whatever, no matter how pure, is nevertheless delivered through the filter of the mind attempting to translate it into verbology. In that regard, were we all speakers of Sanskrit and the Bible written in that august tongue, and the original all spoken in it, we might have some degree of accuracy. But pertinent to that, English is a fundamentally dualistic language, and there were certain assumptions made in translation, at least in the versions that we read, regarding a number of words and ideas.

Also, there are ways of “knowing” the Bible that are self referent, and others that are more phenomenological. What about that book that approaches the ideas of religion from the standpoint of the discipline of General Semantics. Or the Bible might be viewed through the analytic tool of integrative philosophy. Or a number of other ways, bringing to bear disciplines that the ordinary believer not only doesn’t use, but likely hasn’t heard of. Structural differential, anyone? Four quadrants? (yes, I know, there’s that four again!) Linguistics? Translation itself? levels of implied meaning? Collections and how they happen? the nature of witnessing? Literary forms and strictures The nature and parameters of worldviews in the cultuers of origins? Attribution of authorship, eg Paul and Peter? OTHDTHTHBRWWSWRTTNWTHTCPSRPNCTTNFRPGSNDPGS?

But folks can go ahead and take it on faith if they wish. It is just that there is way more to it than meets the blind eye of simple faith. I’m reminded of the story on here of the woman who didn’t learn a foreign language when it would have served her well to do so because “God writ the Bible in English, so that’s good enough for me!”

And lastly,. it is silliness to imply that even if the Bible is not the inspired Word of God in the sens you likely mean it, it would be without great value. That’s just wrong. it might be pious, but it’s wrong.

 

[joeNJ]

I am undisturbed (today).

Men wrote documents. Men evaluated the documents. Men determined what was in, what was out. God did not (directly) write all that much (the 10 commandments were pretty direct).

Why? I infer that you are bothered because the author is not explicitly named?

Your wording is very telling! The words written by men became the words inspired by God. What you are saying here is that God did not inspire the words. But, what really happened is that people wrote stuff - and then other people just marked it as inspired. Presto! It became “inspired”.

joeNJ, you are asking questions that get to one that I find fundamental. I have been discussing this same issue with my friends for the past few weeks. The question is, for me anyway, all about how Jesus decided to interact with humanity. It is messy, is it not? It is not clear cut, is it? God apparently **wants **us to struggle. I see in nature that growth results from the struggle. Also, when we try to grasp something simple - like a new math concept, the learning comes when we struggle through the issue. Then, mastery of the subject comes when we teach it to others.

It makes sense to me that Jesus would **not **come and go without some kind of lasting marker for his people. Why must that be in the form of a bible? To me, it makes sense that we would all be involved in learning and teaching under a singular authority.

As for the mistakes in the Church? Have you considered that Jesus selected Judas to be one of the twelve? Jesus himself made that decision. What could be worse than betraying Jesus directly? After seeing everything that he did for people? All the healing? All the signs? So, if you want to convict the entire Church because it invited some of the people that turned out to be bad actors - then I think you convict Jesus too - because he (knowingly!) invited a very bad actor.

I have noticed that when bad things happen, good can result from it. For example, when the church in Corinth was under attack by false teachers, Paul was compelled to write letters to set the record straight. The attack on the church was bad. But, we now enjoy the benefit of Paul’s writings as a direct result of those attacks. Especially in the Church, God seems to take the attacks and turn them into a large benefit.

Those are my thoughts.

You seem to have many of the same thoughts that I do. But you seem to gloss over that “Presto, me just marked it as inspired”. I agree with that, but so many people believe that to have so much more meaning. Surely you must see that.

Also, I am not convicting the Church for a few peoples mistakes, I was questioning the validity of divine guidance in everything the Church does. Using some examples to prove it. Our views really are not so far apart it would appear.