"Show it to me from scripture"

[Syele]

Ignoring all the other problems with this argument, let’s just continue with it for the sake of discussion… Are you saying that if a book is “historically accurate” then it logically follows that that book must be divinely inspired? If not, then this argument is clearly insufficient to begin with.

No I’m not saying that. I’m saying that God doesn’t make mistakes. Therefore if a text has a historical mistake it must be ruled out that God personally inspired it. There will be many books with no mistakes that are not inspired but no books that are inspired with mistakes.

First of all you’re treating the Bible as one big monolithic piece of literature, which is a huge mistake. It’s not like one guy sat down, wrote the whole thing and said “I’m going to call this book ‘the Bible!’” Also, no book in the Bible ever refers to itself as being part of a larger collection of books in the first place, so your claims that any part in “the Bible” refers to itself as such don’t hold water. Revelation is the only book that claims in itself to even be divinely inspired, as far as I know. The other books do not. In any case, I don’t know why you list the mere claim to be divinely inspired as evidence of itself. An argument, left on its own, does not prove itself.

Many books refer to others at least by quoting them. I tend to refer to God’s word as one thing out of habit.

You are basically saying “it’s my own personal feeling”. Anyone can say this about their own religion. Muslims do it all the time, and they think it is enough proof that their religion is true. As Christians, we must rise above these whimsical human tendencies and base our faith on hard evidence and solid fact.

The Bible is not the Bible because I feel it is. The Bible is the Bible because God said so. Millions of Christians agree on what books beling in there. If you think believeing that the Holy Spirit moving is “whimsical human tendencies” then I must take exception to that. Yes anyone can Say they heard from God. and that dosn’t prove they did. As Christians we have to use discrenment.

Again, you are stating a conditional, but how is the conditional supposed to be proof of itself?? A Muslim, for example, could say “IF the Quran cannot be trusted then we are basing our faith on lies.” By your reasoning, such a statement by itself actually proves the Quran to be true! Sorry but this just won’t wash. You will have to be consistent here.

I didn’t say it proves itself. I said I am convinced it is true based on my experience with the Holy Spirit. Yes it rests on my faith. My faith says the Bible is correct and is the word of God. Why should I alone have to prove such a thing? I shouldn’t it is up to the entire body of Christ not one individual. Calvinists, Arminians, Catholics and people who mix it all up (except a few cults) all tend to agree the Bible is inspired. You all go on about how we do not seem to agree on things… but in this Christians do agree for the most part.

 

[Turtullian]

Many people believe behemoths and dragons are both types of Dinosaurs. Also as for unicorns being in one english translation of the Bible… It would have to make me question that translation if none of the others agree. If we are going to go by what athiests think… we have to forget about most of Genesis anyhow.

My point is being that we as Catholics trust the judgement of the Church on issues like this in making plain to us what scripture says. The Ethiopian Eunich needed Peter to tell him what the words in Isaiah meant as he could not understand it.

Traditions can and do change over time. It is, in fact, one of the main reasons protestants and Catholics disagree.

If Traditions change and moral theology change then the Church itself changes. THe Holy Spirit does not whisper controdictory things to the Church over time. It’s either true before, now, and tomorrow, or it is not true period.

It doesn’t as other poeters have already pointed out…

As I noted I had expanded as to why your idea actually deats your own arguements.

You seem to have properly summed up the Catholic position. But I disagree.

But st. james talks about the “Church being the Pillar and Foundation of Truth”. This was how it was historically viewed by the Churcha as a whole up to the Reformation. It’s either the Scripture has lied to us by saying the Church is partially the pillar and foundation of truth not really the pillar and foundation of truth. If you believe in Sola Scriptura, then you would ahve to accept there has to be a church that is solid in it’s doctrinale pronouncements. So far, only the catholics have been able to show this.

Just because someone thinks something is true, dosn’t make it so. that goes for everyone.

But the Truth is objective. The truth is the truth. WE have the Law of non-contradiction. We can’t both be telling the truth. Either We are both Liars or someone here is telling the truth.

 

[Syele]

My point is being that we as Catholics trust the judgement of the Church on issues like this in making plain to us what scripture says. The Ethiopian Eunich needed Peter to tell him what the words in Isaiah meant as he could not understand it.

I’m not Catholic but I agree at times people need help understanding scripture, that is why some are gifted as teachers.

If Traditions change and moral theology change then the Church itself changes. THe Holy Spirit does not whisper controdictory things to the Church over time. It’s either true before, now, and tomorrow, or it is not true period.

The Catholic veiw is that all is the same. The Protestant one is that it isn’t. We could have an entire thread on Tradition. It isn’t on topic here, really.

But the Truth is objective. The truth is the truth. WE have the Law of non-contradiction. We can’t both be telling the truth. Either We are both Liars or someone here is telling the truth.

You are restating my point in different words, the truth is the truth reguardless of how many people say something else is the truth.

 

[Atreyu]

No I’m not saying that. I’m saying that God doesn’t make mistakes. Therefore if a text has a historical mistake it must be ruled out that God personally inspired it. There will be many books with no mistakes that are not inspired but no books that are inspired with mistakes.

This is a complicated issue. What constitutes a historical mistake? If we take Genesis for example, I really don’t believe that the Heavens and the Earth were created in the time it takes for the Earth to rotate seven times. Do you? If not, would this constitute a historical mistake? I think it is an allegory and therefore it does not constitute a historical mistake. But it is not written to be clear that it is allegory, and so we have millions of Christians believing the Earth was created in seven literal days, in clear contradistinction to the irrefutable science fact. If Christians can explain Genesis away, then I can explain a phoenix in the same way.

The Bible is not the Bible because I feel it is. The Bible is the Bible because God said so.

When did God say so? Are you talking about the councils of the Catholic Church at which the canon of the Bible was defined?

Millions of Christians agree on what books beling in there.

But billions of Christians have a different Bible to the Bible most Protestants have. Are we then to trust the majority? Because if so, you would surely need to use the Catholic Bible! Note that I am not here suggesting we take the majority as true, I’m simply trying to refute your argument above.

If you think believeing that the Holy Spirit moving is “whimsical human tendencies” then I must take exception to that. Yes anyone can Say they heard from God. and that dosn’t prove they did. As Christians we have to use discrenment.

Well what was the point of Jesus coming to Earth and teaching in the first place? If believers only need the Holy Spirit, then why would they need a Bible? And if they do need a Bible, then who is to say that we don’t need a Church as well? The Bible itself tells us we need a Church, when it says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and we should be careful about interpreting the Bible (specifically, Paul’s letters). But saying that we only need the Bible and the Holy Spirit is totally arbitrary!

I didn’t say it proves itself. I said I am convinced it is true based on my experience with the Holy Spirit. Yes it rests on my faith. My faith says the Bible is correct and is the word of God. Why should I alone have to prove such a thing? I shouldn’t it is up to the entire body of Christ not one individual. Calvinists, Arminians, Catholics and people who mix it all up (except a few cults) all tend to agree the Bible is inspired. You all go on about how we do not seem to agree on things… but in this Christians do agree for the most part.

But we are not in total accord. Again, this argument gives us no idea as to the scope of the inspired writings: the canon of the Bible. There is disagreement among the different Christians groups as to what constitutes the canon, so who are we to trust?

 

[Mystophilus]

Do not panic when you read this.

No I’m not saying that. I’m saying that God doesn’t make mistakes. Therefore if a text has a historical mistake it must be ruled out that God personally inspired it. There will be many books with no mistakes that are not inspired but no books that are inspired with mistakes.

There is a disagreement about the colour of the cloak which the soldiers put onto Jesus after beating him: in Matthew 27:28, it is κοκκινην (->κοκκινος), deep red; in Mark 15:17, it is πορφυραν (->πορφυρa), bluish purple.

There is a disagreement about the appearance, actions, and number of angels at the empty tomb: Matthew 28:2-7 and Mark 16:4-7 have one, whom the women seeing rolling the stone away; Luke 24:4-7 has two, whom the women meet after having entered the already-opened tomb; John 20:12-13 has two, but they appear after Mary of Magdala has been to the tomb, seen it open, told Peter, and then returned to it after Peter has left.

There is a disagreement about what Jesus rides into Jerusalem: in Matthew 21:2-7, Jesus rides into Jerusalem on a donkey and its colt; in Mark 11:2-7, Luke 19:30-35 and John 12:14-15, he rides only the colt.

There is a disagreement about the day on which Jesus is crucified: in Matthew 26:17ff, Mark 14:12ff and Luke22:7ff, it is the day after the day of Preparation; in John 19:14, it is on the day of Preparation.

There are many more such disagreements in the Bible, especially between Kings and Chronicles, but I think that the pattern has become clear.

If they disagree, does that not mean that at least one of them must be mistaken? In that case, were your argument correct that mistakes could not occur in an inspired document, the Gospels themselves, or at least some of them, must not be inspired by God.

Consider, if you will, an alternative hypothesis: there are four Gospels because no one of them was ever meant to be perfect; they disagree because human recollection and human representation are imperfect; this is all the way that God intended it to be.

 

[kindlylight]

Re Tradition:

The early Bishops had to use a practical rule when making their decision on the Canon of inspired writings ie what books had God for their primary author.
**The rule they used was the USAGE of the Church in the preceding centuries. **
This was a direct appeal to tradition, and when you think about it, was the only way it could be decided as the Spirit would not have influenced centuries of error in a Church with Divine guidance.

 

[E.E.N.S]

“Show it to me from scripture”

1 Tim 3:15

 

[Syele]

Don’t panic when you read this:

“Yet the Bible talks about dragons, unicorns (kjv), and behemoths and other mystical creatures of folklore. To an athiest, this alone would prove that even the Bible is a bunch a junk.”

This was to explain why Clements letter to the Corinthians should be in the Bible. What this line of debate was supposed to accomplish in convincing me of the authority of the Catholic church is beyond me. It sounds to me like an appeal to NOT believe in the Bible at all. What have Athiests got to do with weather the Bible is inspired or not?

“If we take Genesis for example, I really don’t believe that the Heavens and the Earth were created in the time it takes for the Earth to rotate seven times. Do you? If not, would this constitute a historical mistake?”

Genesis is a historical mistake. Great. why don’t we just declare The whole Bible a historical mistake and be done with it? Most of the “irrefutable scientists” have done so already.

Then we have a whole list of things people disagree about, Like it all about people and what we think instead of what God thinks or something…

It all boils down to one thing… You think the Holy Spirit dosn’t talk to mere believers in God. The Holy Spirit only talks to the special people. The rest of us are not capable of understanding without them. So what happens when one of your special people is corrupted? The rest of you are corrupted as well because you believe you shouldn’t think for yourselves. After all the Bible talks of Dragons and Behemoths! And OMG it says the Earth was CREATED in ONLY 6 days!!!

 

[Turtullian]

Don’t panic when you read this:

“Yet the Bible talks about dragons, unicorns (kjv), and behemoths and other mystical creatures of folklore. To an athiest, this alone would prove that even the Bible is a bunch a junk.”

This was to explain why Clements letter to the Corinthians should be in the Bible. What this line of debate was supposed to accomplish in convincing me of the authority of the Catholic church is beyond me. It sounds to me like an appeal to NOT believe in the Bible at all. What have Athiests got to do with weather the Bible is inspired or not?

You ignored my point. To a simple laymen reading the Bible, he would think that tjis stuff is junk and Athiest even moreso. You have to understand the Bible in not just the original languages but the teachings and homilies and writings of the Doctors of the Church and teachings of the Bishops and the teachings of the ecumenical councils to understand what scripture says as even scripture plainly says in many places that it is hard to understand, it needs to be taught to people.

IF we are teaching scripture, then we need to teach correctly. That’s where the magisterium of the Church comes as the Church teaches scripture infallibly as a whole. If it were like the protestants, we would have several different “spirit-led” interpretations of what is claimed as the correct interpretation.

It all boils down to one thing… You think the Holy Spirit dosn’t talk to mere believers in God. The Holy Spirit only talks to the special people. The rest of us are not capable of understanding without them. So what happens when one of your special people is corrupted? The rest of you are corrupted as well because you believe you shouldn’t think for yourselves. After all the Bible talks of Dragons and Behemoths! And OMG it says the Earth was CREATED in ONLY 6 days!!!

Catholics don’t deny that that the Holy Spirit talks to believers. However, the Church and the magisterium of the Church is there to help us discern just what the Holy Spirit is asking us to do becuase the Church is the Pillar and foundation of Truth. THere is a whole element of Charismatic renewel in the Church as well as the Charisms that the Great Doctors and Saints of the Church had. They understood that they needed to discern what therir call was and the Church being the vehicle of God. We as humans need the guidance of the church to understand what the Holy Spirit is telling us.

And secondly, your second objection assumes that a bishop or two or three constitutes the “entire Church”. If a Bishop teaches something taht is not the catholic Faith, then we go higher up on the chain of the ladder to the Roman Curia and finally to the Pope himself. The Pope being infallible will not teach or proclaim anything pertaining to the Faith or Morals (IE Declaring Murder to acceptable and forcing the Church to accept this as Truth, or saying ilicit Sex is Okay) that runs contrary to the faith or morals. As he who ratifies the statements of the Magisterium that operates by Ecumenical council and officially prounances dogma is protected by the charism of the Holy Spirit, he can not himself change or promulgate teaching that runs either contrary to the Catholic Faith.

 

[exoflare]

Genesis is a historical mistake. Great. why don’t we just declare The whole Bible a historical mistake and be done with it? Most of the “irrefutable scientists” have done so already.

What the heck is it with you and jumping to conclusions on everything?! Nobody said Genesis was a historical mistake. On the contrary, it was your assumption that Genesis was trying to teach history to begin with.

If you took that manner of thinking to its logical conclusion, most of Jesus’ parables would also be “false” because they never happened in real life.

 

[Syele]

Well you lost me with you not believing Genesis is Historical. I see no point in continuing.

 

[Atreyu]

Don’t panic when you read this:

“If we take Genesis for example, I really don’t believe that the Heavens and the Earth were created in the time it takes for the Earth to rotate seven times. Do you? If not, would this constitute a historical mistake?”

Genesis is a historical mistake. Great. why don’t we just declare The whole Bible a historical mistake and be done with it? Most of the “irrefutable scientists” have done so already.

Syele, I don’t think there is a single “mistake” in the Bible. However, I think there are plenty of places where the Bible contains allegory. The purpose of that allegory is to teach a theological truth. If you think about it that way, that actually gives the teachings of the Bible more credence than a history, don’t you think? Is it really important that we know how long it took for the Heavens and the Earth to be created? Or is it more important that we understand how Man fell and the instigation of Original Sin? My point with appealing to Genesis is that if we can explain something like Genesis - that seems so contrary to science - then surely we could explain the presence of a phoenix in the writings of Clement. Note that all of this argument is simply trying to show that Protestants have no consistent way of defining what is an inspired writing. That is what the Catholics are trying to show; I think we may have missed the point a little bit in recent posts.

It all boils down to one thing… You think the Holy Spirit dosn’t talk to mere believers in God.

No Syele, we never said this! What is important though, is to understand how the Holy Spirit talks to us “mere believers”.

The Holy Spirit only talks to the special people.

No.

The rest of us are not capable of understanding without them.

This is evident from experience, is it not?

So what happens when one of your special people is corrupted?

You mean if they sin? The Holy Spirit protects the function of the office of these so-called “special people”. Sinning doesn’t affect infallibility. It couldn’t (if infallibility exists) as everyone sins!

The rest of you are corrupted as well because you believe you shouldn’t think for yourselves.

Come on Syele, what’s this about?

After all the Bible talks of Dragons and Behemoths! And OMG it says the Earth was CREATED in ONLY 6 days!!!

Syele we can speculate on what God could or couldn’t do. I mean, the Holy Spirit could speak to each and every “mere believer” and protect the believer from error, because God can do anything. The much more important question is to try to discover what God has done. A less important question is why He has done it. You believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to each and every believer and keeps them free from error. Yet it is evident that this does not happen, as each believer believes in a different thing to the next. This is especially true in the case of Protestantism. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to each and every believer; yet for a believer to keep free from error, he must be obedient to those placed in authority above his. This is evident from the Bible, in such passages where Paul says “the church is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth”, and Jesus says to the Seventy “he who hears you hears me”. It is also evident in the fact that the Catholic Church has never overturned a doctrine nor contradicted herself in matters of faith and morals, in 2000 years. I understand that you would probably disagree with me here, but it is surely a topic for another thread, so please let me take it as an axiom for now.

What is also evident in the Bible, is how many believers are disobedient to those placed in authority above them: the prophets of Israel. Again and again these people are disobedient, and they are rebuked every time. If the Jews are supposed to be obedient to the prophets, then doesn’t it make sense that we should also be obedient to those placed in authority above us?

Now to the question: why has God chosen to do things this way? Well, as a possible answer, let me pose a question to you:
If we cannot obey those in authority on Earth, then who is to say we will or are able to obey God’s authority in Heaven?
Sorry for going off-topic again, I just thought that this would be a good thing to think about.

 

[Atreyu]

Well you lost me with you not believing Genesis is Historical. I see no point in continuing.

How do you know Genesis is historically true?

 

[Mystophilus]

Don’t panic when you read this:
“If we take Genesis for example, I really don’t believe that the Heavens and the Earth were created in the time it takes for the Earth to rotate seven times. Do you? If not, would this constitute a historical mistake?”

Genesis is a historical mistake. Great. why don’t we just declare The whole Bible a historical mistake and be done with it? Most of the “irrefutable scientists” have done so already.

I might just panic, if that is okay with you.

I might also suggest that we look a little more closely at Genesis. In chapter 1, the man appears after the animals. In chapter 2, the man appears before the animals. Some translations, e.g., the NIV, have rewritten the verb in 2:19, ‘formed’, as “had formed”. “formed” shows the tense of the source texts. You can read it here, or here, or you can find a rabbi to read it from the Torah, of which the last is certainly best by far.

So, there is a disagreement between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. If they were meant to be literally true, this makes no sense: they cannot both be so when they are mutually contradictory. Being contradictory, if they were meant to be true, why would the compilers of the text have left both of them in there? Were all of them, copying and recopying the scrolls over hundreds and hundreds of years, completely daft?

If they were never meant to be literally true, it makes perfect sense: Ge 1 shows the man (or, more precisely, the woman) as the final act, the pinnacle, of Creation; Ge 2 shows the man as the centre of Creation. The two stories complement one another and do not compete because neither was meant to be Absolute Truth.

The popular modern Protestant idea that the Bible ought to be literally true is an idea which stems from C16th politics, not from C1st texts, let alone from the Torah.

God, I think, has other plans for us. Consider God’s visit to Abraham in Ge 18. God tells Abraham about the plan to destroy Sodom. Abraham argues with God’s plan. In Ex 32, Moses argues against God’s plan to destroy the Israelites. In Zech 1, an angel questions the reasonability of God’s punishment of Israel. None of these complaints is met with a rebuke of any kind: they challenge God out of the unimpeachable motive of mercy, opposing God’s stated word, and their action is accepted.

It is what is in the heart that matters, not the letter of the text.

 

[exoflare]

How do you know Genesis is historically true?

I would imagine the answer is one of these three:

Their pastor said so.

Someone else they knew (outside of scripture, of course) said so.

It’s their personal feeling. (aka “guided by the Holy Spirit”)

 

[exoflare]

I’m starting to get the feeling that most of these responses are based on emotion and cultural biases rather than on facts and logic. Can you please respond to the actual questions, rather than putting words into everybody’s mouth?

 

[Syele]

1. Genesis 1 and 2 are complementary not Contradictory. Thousands of apologists ahve explained it better than I could. Do a Google search.
2. the Holy Spirit dosn’t keep every believer free from error because we all have the free will not to listen to Him if we so choose.
3. If you are so willing to accept Genesis and Jonah as only allegory, what makes you think The entire story of Jesus Birth death and ressurection are not?
4. Believeing a mixture of the Genesis Creation and Evolution is completely illogical. I would have respect for evoloution more than some weird mixture. Mixing them makes the whole story of the fall useless, negates and believe in origional sin. And Causes a whole other bucketload of Theological problems. Do some research. Last I checked the Church allows you to believe this mixture bunk. Sounds corrupt to me.

If Genesis is not historically true then the New Testament is a load of ****. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t understand even a fraction of Genesis.

Exoflare… I’m not “putting words in anybodys mouth” They are the ones claiming Jonah and Genesis are not accurate. Not me.

You are all decided, and you don’t really care to learn, I’m not the one to teach on this subject anyhow, there is no way you are going to convince me you are correct, so there is zero point in me continuing this conversation.

I’m done.

 

[Atreyu]

1. the Holy Spirit dosn’t keep every believer free from error because we all have the free will not to listen to Him if we so choose.

So how do you know when you are following Him or not?

1. If you are so willing to accept Genesis and Jonah as only allegory, what makes you think The entire story of Jesus Birth death and ressurection are not?

Good question. But I am not 100% sure that some of the stories in Genesis are only allegory; it just makes more sense to me. When you have an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence in contradistinction to an interpretation of the Scriptures, then - as the Scriptures cannot possibly be incorrect - it is our interpretation that must be incorrect. But I am not trying to say that my interpretation is correct, all I’m trying to say is that it would be as easy to explain the presence of a phoenix in the letter of Clement as it is to explain the fantastic stories in Genesis and the rest of the OT.

1. Believeing a mixture of the Genesis Creation and Evolution is completely illogical. I would have respect for evoloution more than some weird mixture. Mixing them makes the whole story of the fall useless, negates and believe in origional sin. And Causes a whole other bucketload of Theological problems. Do some research. Last I checked the Church allows you to believe this mixture bunk. Sounds corrupt to me.

This is really the topic for another thread, as I only see non sequiturs here. I have done some research, and I’m more than satisfied that evolution is compatible with the doctrine of the Fall and Original Sin.

If Genesis is not historically true then the New Testament is a load of ****. If you don’t believe that, then you don’t understand even a fraction of Genesis.

Stupid me, I clearly don’t understand a fraction of Genesis!

Exoflare… I’m not “putting words in anybodys mouth” They are the ones claiming Jonah and Genesis are not accurate. Not me.

NO! I never said that Genesis is not accurate! It is inspired by God, and therefore it must be accurate! I really think that you are putting words into my mouth, at this point. What I think is that the story is allegory for a reason; but it is allegory nonetheless. My further claim is that those who are adamant that it is stricly historical miss the point of the story in the first place.

You are all decided, and you don’t really care to learn, I’m not the one to teach on this subject anyhow, there is no way you are going to convince me you are correct, so there is zero point in me continuing this conversation.

Why would you get so concerned when someone claims that Genesis is not strictly historical? By the way this whole thing about Genesis is beside the point. If you do decide to stay in this thread, do you have any more insights into why the deuterocanonicals, for example, are not canonical?

 

[Syele]

I’m not staying, just want to clear up one thing. I believe Genesis is both Historical and allegory, not one or the other.

 

[Will_Pick]

Syele, I don’t think there is a single “mistake” in the Bible. However, I think there are plenty of places where the Bible contains allegory. The purpose of that allegory is to teach a theological truth. If you think about it that way, that actually gives the teachings of the Bible more credence than a history, don’t you think? Is it really important that we know how long it took for the Heavens and the Earth to be created? Or is it more important that we understand how Man fell and the instigation of Original Sin? My point with appealing to Genesis is that if we can explain something like Genesis - that seems so contrary to science - then surely we could explain the presence of a phoenix in the writings of Clement. Note that all of this argument is simply trying to show that Protestants have no consistent way of defining what is an inspired writing. That is what the Catholics are trying to show; I think we may have missed the point a little bit in recent posts.

No Syele, we never said this! What is important though, is to understand how the Holy Spirit talks to us “mere believers”.

No.

This is evident from experience, is it not?

You mean if they sin? The Holy Spirit protects the function of the office of these so-called “special people”. Sinning doesn’t affect infallibility. It couldn’t (if infallibility exists) as everyone sins!

Come on Syele, what’s this about?

Syele we can speculate on what God could or couldn’t do. I mean, the Holy Spirit could speak to each and every “mere believer” and protect the believer from error, because God can do anything. The much more important question is to try to discover what God has done. A less important question is why He has done it. You believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to each and every believer and keeps them free from error. Yet it is evident that this does not happen, as each believer believes in a different thing to the next. This is especially true in the case of Protestantism. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit speaks to each and every believer; yet for a believer to keep free from error, he must be obedient to those placed in authority above his. This is evident from the Bible, in such passages where Paul says “the church is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth”, and Jesus says to the Seventy “he who hears you hears me”. It is also evident in the fact that the Catholic Church has never overturned a doctrine nor contradicted herself in matters of faith and morals, in 2000 years. I understand that you would probably disagree with me here, but it is surely a topic for another thread, so please let me take it as an axiom for now.

What is also evident in the Bible, is how many believers are disobedient to those placed in authority above them: the prophets of Israel. Again and again these people are disobedient, and they are rebuked every time. If the Jews are supposed to be obedient to the prophets, then doesn’t it make sense that we should also be obedient to those placed in authority above us?

Now to the question: why has God chosen to do things this way? Well, as a possible answer, let me pose a question to you: If we cannot obey those in authority on Earth, then who is to say we will or are able to obey God’s authority in Heaven?Sorry for going off-topic again, I just thought that this would be a good thing to think about.

Mere believers,Dids the Holy Spirit talk to Chas Russell ? or maybe David Koresh ? LOL