|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The new teachings of Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
So, we've been round and round on the topic of Biblical literalism. But here's a new point of discussion.
If someone were to add a new chapter to the Bible, one which had not existed in any previous versions. Would it be accepted by the literalists as true? What if it "sounded like something Jesus would say"? Keep in mind, I'm not asking if you would accept the message as a spiritual teaching. Let's all assume that the message is valid and Christ-like. That no one doubts that it something that Jesus would have taught, had he thought to teach it. What I am asking is very specifically this: Would the brand new chapter in the Bible become retroactively literally true?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
no. as evidence, i submit the gospel of thomas, and the book of mormon. fundamentalists accept neither.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rgb Inactive Member |
Nuggin writes
quote:Jesus once said that the healthy do not need physicians but the sick do, just as the sinners need spiritual healers. If Jesus says something that needs to be added to the bible, wouldn't it has to be something of moral significance not obvious enough for us to just come up with it? If so, how would we know that it "sounded like something Jesus would say"?
quote:We can't go anywhere past an assumption that makes no sense. How would we know that a message is christ-like if it is something new? If it really sounds christ-like, then we have already collectively came to the same moral conclusion and therefore there would be no need for such a message. quote:The answer would still be no.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Depends.
In general the various Canons were set in stone around 200-400AD and have remained stable since then. There was the minor change in the Protestant Canon at the Reformation, but that is one of the few examples. BUT... various sects have accepted new books. The Mormons are a good example. Down through history other groups at times accepted other books as Canon, particularly the Gnostic Gospels. The point is that as much as they would like to claim inerrancy and infallibility, there has NEVER been one universal Canon, and it is unlikely that there ever will be such a critter. The best they can do is shout "Mine, Mine, Mine" and stick their fingers in their ears to drown out the voices from all the others that have the Absolute Truth® who, like them are shouting "Mine, Mine, Mine". Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Nuggin writes: If someone were to add a new chapter to the Bible, one which had not existed in any previous versions. Would it be accepted by the literalists as true? Much of what literalists accept as "true" is already add-ons. We have some who take their "orthodox" theology from commentaries rather than the Bible. We even have some who get their theology from Kirk Cameron videos. Most of the literalist "understanding" of the first part of Genesis comes from creationist videos, not the Bible. Would literalists accept "new" theology from extra-Biblical sources? Of course. Would they "add" it to the Bible? No. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Read through your post a few times, and, honestly I've been vacant from the board for a while, so I'm a little sketchy on who's in favor of what any more.
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. That I understand. But are you suggesting that what is in the Bible is therefore the actually teachings of Christ? 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? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I agree that Fundies don't hold the Book of Mormon as scripture, but at what point do we play the numbers game.
Mormon's will soon (if they don't already) out number the Fundimentalists. Do we say, "This is the Bible, and it means X" simply because a single minority of religeous opinions says so? I don't think so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rgb Inactive Member |
Nuggin writes
quote: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:I wouldn't know, since the guy supposedly died over 2k years ago. quote: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:If you want to add anything to the bible, you'd have to do it over the Pope's dead body.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Sounds like if it did happen, it would be by God allowing it to happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1941 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
The point is that as much as they would like to claim inerrancy and infallibility, there has NEVER been one universal Canon, and it is unlikely that there ever will be such a critter. The best they can do is shout "Mine, Mine, Mine" and stick their fingers in their ears to drown out the voices from all the others that have the Absolute Truth® who, like them are shouting "Mine, Mine, Mine". Yea. Like, if the Bible were really true everybody would agreeabout everything in it, like everyone agrees about everything else. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
If you want to add anything to the bible, you'd have to do it over the Pope's dead body. Which Pope? 99% of them are already dead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
So, let's get down to the nitty-gritty here.
Up until about 1,000 years ago, no version of the Bible included the passage about the stoning. ("Let he who is without sin throw the first stone, etc.) During the 1,000 years before it's spontaneous appearence in the Holy and Unchanging Bible which was written by men directed by God so they can't possibly have made any mistakes, no Biblical scholar made any mention of the passage. So it's safe to assume that there isn't some Biblical Missing-Link that we just haven't recovered. Basically, 1,000 years ago someone said -- "Hey, this sounds like something Jesus would say." and added to the Bible. At that point it went immediately from "Something Jesus would say" to "Something Jesus DID say." That's 1 account of an addition. How many more are they? How many deletions? How many more additions are to come?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Plenty more additions to come I presume. The NIV is a good example of the ever so slight evolution of the message of the bible. Many things are "paraphrased" in the NIV in order to blur the inconsistencies in the bible. It is what the writers "meant" rather than what they said.
It could be as simple as 1 word such as "had". Genesis 2:19 - KJV: And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; NIV: Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. There is a big difference between "formed" and "had formed". The first is inconsistent with Genesis 1 emphasizing the reality that they are 2 different creation stories. The second gives you some wiggle room to say that Genesis 2 is "the details". Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rgb Inactive Member |
Nuggin writes
quote:Which ever pope that reigns during the time you want to make changes to the bible. If you want to do it during the current pope's benevolent reign, you'll have to do it soon.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024