Nuggin writes
quote:
It sounds like you are saying that new teachings can't be verified as being Christ-like since they wouldn't be coming from Christ, and therefore should not be put into the Bible and held up as the word of God.
No, that's not what I meant. I mean that new teachings can't be verified as being christ-like because we wouldn't know what "christ-liked" sounds like.
For example, if tomorrow and alien race shows itself and we need a whole new set of moral laws to deal with this new alien race and someone claims to have a whole new set of moral laws from christ that deals with this new alien race, we wouldn't have a clue if they'd be christ-like or not.
The very idea of "christ-like" is an insult to the idea of a supreme being looking down on us. Being able to tell if something is "christ-like" or not is the same thing as imposing your view onto god, forcing him to say what you want him to say.
quote:
But are you suggesting that what is in the Bible is therefore the actually teachings of Christ?
I wouldn't know, since the guy supposedly died over 2k years ago.
quote:
In short, are you a literalist? Or, like someone who posted before you, do you think that the Bible is an ongoing work constantly being updated and changed?
All I know is that translations are imperfect, just like cellular fusion. Eventually, the minute changes accumulate and you have something that is significantly different than the original.
quote:
And, if the later, how do you reconcile not wanting to add new stuff to the Bible after so much has already been added/deleted/changed over the years?
If you want to add anything to the bible, you'd have to do it over the Pope's dead body.