Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Such as the nature of the Holy Divinity, the means of salvation, the existence of heaven and hell, the use of prayer, the communion of believers, etc.
I don’t think each believer should have to figure all these things out for themselves when thay have been studied in great detail by learned minds. Sure there will always be some variations in belief, but some basic guidelines are useful.
...as opposed to personal relationships, where we seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit for specific situations.
The character of the Spirit is very clearly known. The Spirit is Love. We are called to love one another. That was 100% of Jesus’ teaching. The body of believers are those who accept this message and make an effort to live a loving life. The Church is a Jesus-founded, human-run organization that attempts to guide people in this lifestyle. Jesus obviously intended to start an non-political organization to carry on his work, as opposed to merely a collection of individuals. This is proven in him selecting 12 Apostles among all the disciples. It is also proven in the formation of the Church by the Apostles after the Resurrection
Jesus rejecting and denigrating ANY hierarchy belies your claim that He intended to institute a Church instead of a gathering of followers (ecclesia).
What is your interpretation of Mt 16:18?
How can God inculcate “God’s consciousness within His human consciousness” without some advocate here on Earth? Wouldn’t Jesus have to come to each of us individually? Wouldn’t it make much more sense to come once and leave it up to his Church to carry on the mission?
That’s what I would do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
Yes, your understanding is what your church organization teaches you. Should anyone be surprised? Mystic goes a little overboard in his statement about Jesus' intentions, but that is simply because of the belief in what "church" means to the followers of the various organizations that label themselves "church:" it no more means a particular organization than it does a particular building. ἐκκλησία is "properly, people called out from the world and to God" and your citation from Matthew simply means that the body of believers will found their faith in the idea that Jesus embodied the Christ or the Way that He taught. No political organization that may administer to that body of believers IS that body, nor the authority OF that body. Your political body claims to have been established and led by the promised Spirit, but how do they demonstrate that leading? Simple answer: they don't; they simply claim it is there, but they make no reference to the character OF that Spirit in their deliberations or conclusions. "My sheep will know my voice" is good, but how? By the nature of what that voice tells them. Giving that authority to a book is a cop out to the need to distinguish the nature of the Spirit that leads and that can be seen by the fact that arguments are ALWAYS about the grammatical meaning of the book instead of the nature of the interpretation, which should ALWAYS be about what is in the best interests of everyone involved in any situation (not always easy to be determined).
Amen, Nate! I was going to respond to Retroit but you did a better job of it.
Such as the nature of the Holy Divinity, the means of salvation, the existence of heaven and hell, the use of prayer, the communion of believers, etc.
I don’t think each believer should have to figure all these things out for themselves when thay have been studied in great detail by learned minds. Sure there will always be some variations in belief, but some basic guidelines are useful.
...as opposed to personal relationships, where we seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit for specific situations.
You're describing religiosity.
Jesus, Mr. Rogers, and Bill & Ted, all preached essentially the same message. And it's the only one that matters: Play nicely.
I don’t believe the Church deems the chosen books of the New Testament to be absolutely right. More like: these are the most accurate recordings of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. I’m most certain there are some innaccuracies. Human error in recollection long after actual occurance, bias of the writer, errors in copying and translation, etc. Still, highly credible and worthy of veneration.
Thanks, good to know. We are not that far apart.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
You say “have all the writing available to anyone”. How? In the New Testament or simply in a library available for perusal? If the former, why would you include books that you don’t deem to be of value? If the latter, I agree with you. Don’t ban them, just say these books have not been deemed useful for one’s understanding of Christ.
However. You're still in effect creating a canon.
Look, it would just happen on its own. It WAS happening on its own when the Council of Nicea decided to make it official once and for all. That may have been a mistake. The OP and I both think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
You say that no book should be used to condemn others, but what if those books record the life a person who condemned those who condemned others. Jesus told the orthodox Jews that they created man-made laws that contradicted the law of God. Seems to me that condemnation of condemnation is exactly the thing that should be included in religious texts.
I'm not interested in delving to this level of fussiness. Others may wish to respond. I just don't do the angels/pinheads thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit
With regard to the topic at hand: why endorse books that don’t have “Love God and your neighbor” as a central element. I really don’t care if Jesus stretched the leg of a wooden table to make it stop wobbling (as was mentioned in the Gospel of Thomas, I believe). It has nothing to do with loving God or my neighbor.
Look, it would just happen on its own. It WAS happening on its own when the Council of Nicea decided to make it official once and for all. That may have been a mistake. The OP and I both think so.
Mightyqueen, I don't know if it matters to you or not, but the Council of Nicea (AD 325) had absolutely nothing to do with the canon. It didn't create it, it didn't make it official, it had nothing to do with it. The idea that it did is inaccurate history.
New Testament scholar Michael J. Kruger who has written books on the subject of the canon comments,
Ten Basic Facts about the NT Canon that Every Christian Should Memorize: #8: “The NT Canon Was Not Decided at Nicea—Nor Any Other Church Council.”
For whatever set of reasons, there is a widespread belief out there (internet, popular books) that the New Testament canon was decided at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD—under the conspiratorial influence of Constantine. The fact that this claim was made in Dan Brown’s best-seller The Da Vinci Code shows how widespread it really is. Brown did not make up this belief; he simply used it in his book.
The problem with this belief, however, is that it is patently false. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the New Testament canon (nor did Constantine).
Mightyqueen, I don't know if it matters to you or not, but the Council of Nicea (AD 325) had absolutely nothing to do with the canon. It didn't create it, it didn't make it official, it had nothing to do with it. The idea that it did is inaccurate history.
New Testament scholar Michael J. Kruger who has written books on the subject of the canon comments,
Ten Basic Facts about the NT Canon that Every Christian Should Memorize: #8: “The NT Canon Was Not Decided at Nicea—Nor Any Other Church Council.”
For whatever set of reasons, there is a widespread belief out there (internet, popular books) that the New Testament canon was decided at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD—under the conspiratorial influence of Constantine. The fact that this claim was made in Dan Brown’s best-seller The Da Vinci Code shows how widespread it really is. Brown did not make up this belief; he simply used it in his book.
The problem with this belief, however, is that it is patently false. The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the formation of the New Testament canon (nor did Constantine).
You know as well as I do that the council made it official. You also know that, before that time, it was leaders of the Roman church, the church "fathers" who made the decision as far as what the canon would be. And there was always great resistance.
You know as well as I do that the council made it official. You also know that, before that time, it was leaders of the Roman church, the church "fathers" who made the decision as far as what the canon would be. And there was always great resistance.
It's the same corrupt bunch who made the canon.
Again, as I stated in post #30, ''The final New Testament canon was not the result of any determination by a church council but by the widespread usage of those books by the believing community. The church councils simply confirmed the widespread use of the books which had long been regarded as canonical, and endorsed them.''
Now it's true that at the synods of Hippo (AD 393), Carthage (AD 397 and 419), Augustine cast his vote for the twenty-seven books which make up our New Testament. But even though there had been continued debate by some concerning the canon, those twenty-seven books had long been accepted by the church at large.
The Roman church had nothing to do with deciding what the canon would be. The canonization process occurred over a long period of time although most of the canon was established quite early. The debate was over a few books.
Quoting New Testament scholar Michael J. Kruger once again,
This raises an important fact about the New Testament canon that every Christian should know. The shape of our New Testament canon was not determined by a vote or by a council, but by a broad and ancient consensus. Here we can agree with Bart Ehrman, “The canon of the New Testament was ratified by widespread consensus rather than by official proclamation.”[1]
This historical reality is a good reminder that the canon is not just a man-made construct. It was not the result of a power play brokered by rich cultural elites in some smoke filled room. It was the result of many years of God’s people reading, using, and responding to these books.
Personally I consider myself a follower of Jesus Christ, but I have strong objections to the idea of an "official" canon of books which are considered to be "inspired".
Because if you accept the Roman church's official canon, or the Protestant canon, then you are actually putting your faith in a human organization.
Does anyone else feel this way?
If God did not determine the canon, it is of little value. The books included in the Catholic canon, are mainly historical, which does no change any major doctrines in the Protestant canon. a little as I know about them.
I think the Catholicss do get the doctrine of purgatory from one of them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was going to respond to Retroit but you did a better job of it.
