Do you believe that 2007 will have the second coming of Jesus Christ?

[afleitch]

Anyways, I challenge you to make a case for why any of the excluded books deserved inclusion in canon.

I have never argued for their inclusion and certainly not on this thread if you read back. So please don't make presumptions. I simply stated that they were excluded due to various philisophical (and personal) reasons.

[Bono]

Anyways, I challenge you to make a case for why any of the excluded books deserved inclusion in canon.

I have never argued for their inclusion and certainly not on this thread if you read back. So please don't make presumptions. I simply stated that they were excluded due to various philisophical (and personal) reasons.

No, they were excluded because they didn't meet the criteria for canonicity,  namely because they were forgeries or lacked apostolic authority.

[afleitch]

Anyways, I challenge you to make a case for why any of the excluded books deserved inclusion in canon.

I have never argued for their inclusion and certainly not on this thread if you read back. So please don't make presumptions. I simply stated that they were excluded due to various philisophical (and personal) reasons.

No, they were excluded because they didn't meet the criteria for canonicity,  namely because they were forgeries or lacked apostolic authority.

Even at the time of Constantine? Did he have the liturgical authority to decide which of the many early church books to include or exclude? Or, did he simply empower himself with that authority in order to construct and establish a church structure and set of teachings that complemented his view of his own imperial power and the relationship of his chosen religion with the Roman state?

[Bono]

Anyways, I challenge you to make a case for why any of the excluded books deserved inclusion in canon.

I have never argued for their inclusion and certainly not on this thread if you read back. So please don't make presumptions. I simply stated that they were excluded due to various philisophical (and personal) reasons.

No, they were excluded because they didn't meet the criteria for canonicity,  namely because they were forgeries or lacked apostolic authority.

Even at the time of Constantine? Did he have the liturgical authority to decide which of the many early church books to include or exclude? Or, did he simply empower himself with that authority in order to construct and establish a church structure and set of teachings that complemented his view of his own imperial power and the relationship of his chosen religion with the Roman state?

Constantine, Constantine, Constantine.
Constantine in fact had nothing to do with the canon; the formal declaration of the canon occurred at a council that took place after Constantine’s death, and prior to this, consensus among the leaders in the church was the determining factor in what books were considered authoritative.  The process of canonizing the New Testament was based on a model that had existed for centuries whereby various religions chose a collection of normative sacred books. It's likely that Paul himself began the process by collecting his own letters, or that one of his friends like Luke or Timothy did so. Far from being an arbitrary process, or one decided upon by Constantine much later, the formation of the canon was the result of carefully-weighed choices over time by concerned church officials and members. Later votes on the canon were merely the most definitive steps taken at the end of a long and careful, sometimes difficult, process. Biblical scholar Robert Grant, in The Formation of the New Testament, writes that the New Testament canon was:

"...not the product of official assemblies or even of the studies of a few theologians. It reflects and expresses the ideal self-understanding of a whole religious movement which, in spite of temporal, geographical, and even ideological differences, could finally be united in accepting these 27 diverse documents as expressing the meaning of God's revelation in Jesus Christ and to his church. "

To claim that Constantine was behind the canon, or was responsible for destroying Gospels he did not approve of, is a ludicrous distortion of history. In fact, Constantine convened the Council at Nicea, paid the travel expenses of those who attended, and provided his summer lake palace for the site, but he had no ecclesiastical authority at all. The information we have on the Council is fascinating and in no way supports the idea of a pagan Roman’s overthrow of “early Christianity” or any conspiracy. A good introduction to the facts about the Council is available in the Summer 1996 issue of Christian History magazine, “Heresy in the Early Church,” at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/51h/ .

I repeat my challenge to you. Make a case on why do you think any of the books excluded from the canon should have been included therein, or if not make a case, at least tell me which ones do you think should have. If you don't, you are by default agreeing with me.

[afleitch]

I have never argued for their inclusion

^^^^^^^^

Though other people may and do so.

[Bono]

I have never argued for their inclusion

^^^^^^^^

Though other people may and do so.

Then why are you arguing that point. If you agree with me that the excluded books weren't inspired, why are you raising all those conspiracy theories about supression of other views?

[afleitch]

I have never argued for their inclusion

^^^^^^^^

Though other people may and do so.

Then why are you arguing that point. If you agree with me that the excluded books weren't inspired, why are you raising all those conspiracy theories about supression of other views?

Everything other than your expressed view or understanding of things now appear to be regularly dismissed as 'conspiracy theories.' If you do not believe other views have been supressed in the history of Christian thought and teaching from the early church to pre-renaissance heretics  through to the present day then i'm intrigued to wonder what you believe the Reformation to be a response to!

Just because I am willing to entertain notions of other theological interpretations and historiography doesn't mean I agree with them. I simply allow them a forum

EDIT: I've cut out another notion I had posted as I believe it would cause the topic to digress

[Bono]

I have never argued for their inclusion

^^^^^^^^

Though other people may and do so.

Then why are you arguing that point. If you agree with me that the excluded books weren't inspired, why are you raising all those conspiracy theories about supression of other views?

Everything other than your expressed view or understanding of things now appear to be regularly dismissed as 'conspiracy theories.' If you do not believe other views have been supressed in the history of Christian thought and teaching from the early church to pre-renaissance heretics  through to the present day then i'm intrigued to wonder what you believe the Reformation to be a response to!

The views were supressed in the sense that they were opposed, and in most cases that is to be praised! Should the church not have fought against the heresy of arianism, for instance? However, what is different is appeal to nonexistent evidence for the supression, not of the views themselves, but of the existence of the views.Thus we have completely baseless arguments such as Constantine picked the canon and before him everything was differnet, even if we have the writings of second and third centry church fathers to establish there wasn't any substancial discontinuity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then you must think Augustine, a "Church Father", was a borderline heretic. I am interested in hearing your exegesis(which will probably be eisegesis, but I digress) of Romans 9 and Ephesians 1-2.

Anyways, if you think that way, why did you use people believing in predestination as an excuse for them not preaching the gospel a few months ago?

Of course some genuinely don't pre occupy themselves with 'saving souls' because they believe in predestination so are concerned with the welbeing of people while on earth (which also results in them not becoming heartless b-stards)

[afleitch]

Anyways, if you think that way, why did you use people believing in predestination as an excuse for them not preaching the gospel a few months ago?

Of course some genuinely don't pre occupy themselves with 'saving souls' because they believe in predestination so are concerned with the welbeing of people while on earth (which also results in them not becoming heartless b-stards)

Because I was referring to the views held by some of my close friends who are members of the CofS (after your harsh criticism of the church body). I was simply summarising their interpretation and personal 'implementation' of the notion; doesn't mean I agree with it but neither does it mean I dislike them or belittle them for holding that position.

The reason why I edited my post to remove that example was because I knew it would lead to where it has led - pressing me on the issue of predestination which is wildly off topic.

[Citizen James]

Wow, we have a number of budding theologians here.

I say no for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, revaltaions seem 'tacked on' to me.  I've never understood why some people put such high relavance on it - especially compared to the gospels.  It seems like many of those obsessed with end times tend to forget or ignore the whole "love they neighbor as theyself" and "blessed are the peacemakers' parts so often.  However, in a historical context that seems to be common for many of the writings of the late 1st century.  After all, with the mass persecution of the early Christian sects, who wouldn't want to wish pain and suffering onto their persecutors.  (oddly, this persecuted attitude has remained with some even as they use it as an excuse to persecute others).  In addition, I can't help but wonder if part of the book came from a halucinagenic dream.  (wormwood, mentioned in revalations, was a common halucenogen used in those days).  Use of halucenogens as a 'religious experience' exists in a number of religious traditions.

Secondly, I don't consider John Darby a prophet in any sense of the word.  Cutting and pasting pieces of the bible from all over and filling in a story to fit your position inbetween them and assuming it is all undebatable fact isn't research - it's claiming prophethood all in it's own.   At least the LDS church has the sense to call their new findings the discovery of latter day saints, as opposed to the dispensationalists, who like to pretend that it is all obvious as day as long as nobody looks too closely at their claims.

Thirdly, even if there were some sort of 'end times', only fools and madmen would seek to predict that which noone can 'predict', much less try and force God's will to bend to their own.  I think the best course of action is to live the best one can, and show kindness to one's fellows, and leave to God that which is God's buisness.

[Ebowed]

Not really.  That would only be true if God not existing was by far the accepted "default" assertion that was supported by all the facts accumulated thus far.  The burden of proof is on whoever makes a statement that is not patently obvious or part of generally accepted truths.  I don't consider it obvious or self-evident that God does not exist.

But if I made a statement like "we cannot know whether or not the tooth fairy exists", no one would say well that's not self-evident, and here's a holy book that disagrees.  The only reason anyone treats the question of God any differently is because so many people believe in it.

[John Dibble]

Yes, Buddha came to me and told me that Jesus was reincarnated as a ferret only a few hours ago.

[tik 🪀✨]

Wow, we have a number of budding theologians here.

I say no for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, revaltaions seem 'tacked on' to me.  I've never understood why some people put such high relavance on it - especially compared to the gospels.  It seems like many of those obsessed with end times tend to forget or ignore the whole "love they neighbor as theyself" and "blessed are the peacemakers' parts so often.  However, in a historical context that seems to be common for many of the writings of the late 1st century.  After all, with the mass persecution of the early Christian sects, who wouldn't want to wish pain and suffering onto their persecutors.  (oddly, this persecuted attitude has remained with some even as they use it as an excuse to persecute others).  In addition, I can't help but wonder if part of the book came from a halucinagenic dream.  (wormwood, mentioned in revalations, was a common halucenogen used in those days).  Use of halucenogens as a 'religious experience' exists in a number of religious traditions.

Secondly, I don't consider John Darby a prophet in any sense of the word.  Cutting and pasting pieces of the bible from all over and filling in a story to fit your position inbetween them and assuming it is all undebatable fact isn't research - it's claiming prophethood all in it's own.   At least the LDS church has the sense to call their new findings the discovery of latter day saints, as opposed to the dispensationalists, who like to pretend that it is all obvious as day as long as nobody looks too closely at their claims.

Thirdly, even if there were some sort of 'end times', only fools and madmen would seek to predict that which noone can 'predict', much less try and force God's will to bend to their own.  I think the best course of action is to live the best one can, and show kindness to one's fellows, and leave to God that which is God's buisness.

Your reasonable arguments and kindly demeanor have no place here! GET OUT!

[Gabu]

But if I made a statement like "we cannot know whether or not the tooth fairy exists", no one would say well that's not self-evident, and here's a holy book that disagrees.  The only reason anyone treats the question of God any differently is because so many people believe in it.

And because there's evidence to at least make it a real possibility.  The fact that the universe exists at all indicates that there is a distinct possibility that it was created, and if the universe was created by some entity out there, then that entity would basically by definition fulfill the required prerequisites to claim deity status.

Conversely, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that a tooth fairy exists, and to say that there is no tooth fairy largely is in accordance with conventional wisdom, so that statement does indeed require no proof due to the likelihood of its being true.

Now, if you want to argue that there's no reason at all to believe that this deity is exactly as God appears in the Bible, you'll get no argument from me there.

[Ebowed]

Okay, well that puts us on the same page to some extent.

However, the introduction of a deity as a solution to the question of why we exist raises more questions than it answers.  Where is this deity, and why did it create the universe?  Given the infinite number of possibilities that arise from this, yes, it is true that we cannot conclusively rule out the existence of each and every possible supernatural creator.  The question of whether any sort of supernatural power(s) exist is essentially meaningless, because if they do exist, we have no idea of knowing what their qualities are and why they created us.

What we can discern is that if there is a deity, they a.) don't care about human affairs very much, as demonstrated by numerous factors (the incredible detail put into the millions of species that inhabit the earth as contrasted to the short timespan of human existence, the sheer size of the universe and the relative insignificance of the earth and even our solar system, and the existence of immense suffering and evil within the world), and thus b.) are not deserving of our worship, love, devotion, or admiration.

There is no difference in how an atheist, agnostic, and deist operate on a day-to-day basis.  The existence of a deity is a question of science, not of any personal importance, once religious worship has been removed from the equation.  It essentially comes down to a question of probability.  I agree that there is no reason to believe that, if there is a God, it is anything like the God of the Bible, which is largely created in man's image with unlimited supernatural powers thrown in for literary purposes.  I would go further and argue that the definition of God as accepted by mainstream Christianity is a paradox whose existence is entirely impossible.

[Gabu]

The question of whether any sort of supernatural power(s) exist is essentially meaningless, because if they do exist, we have no idea of knowing what their qualities are and why they created us.

I don't see why that makes the question meaningless.  It only means that you're not going to get very far if further questions are asked.

What we can discern is that if there is a deity, they a.) don't care about human affairs very much, as demonstrated by numerous factors (the incredible detail put into the millions of species that inhabit the earth as contrasted to the short timespan of human existence, the sheer size of the universe and the relative insignificance of the earth and even our solar system, and the existence of immense suffering and evil within the world), and thus b.) are not deserving of our worship, love, devotion, or admiration.

Or they just, really, really value free will.  Or any number of other possible explanations.  Don't these statements kind of run contrary to your assertion above that humans have no idea what the creator's qualities are, if such a thing exists?

There is no difference in how an atheist, agnostic, and deist operate on a day-to-day basis.  The existence of a deity is a question of science, not of any personal importance, once religious worship has been removed from the equation.  It essentially comes down to a question of probability.  I agree that there is no reason to believe that, if there is a God, it is anything like the God of the Bible, which is largely created in man's image with unlimited supernatural powers thrown in for literary purposes.  I would go further and argue that the definition of God as accepted by mainstream Christianity is a paradox whose existence is entirely impossible.

I don't argue with any portion of this paragraph.

[Ebowed]

I don't see why that makes the question meaningless.  It only means that you're not going to get very far if further questions are asked.

Well, not entirely meaningless.  Just futile, because it leaves too many questions open.

Or they just, really, really value free will.  Or any number of other possible explanations.  Don't these statements kind of run contrary to your assertion above that humans have no idea what the creator's qualities are, if such a thing exists?

I don't think free will explains any of my concerns adequately; in regards to the existence of evil and suffering in the world, some of it is out of our control.  A person who gets AIDS from a blood transfusion didn't use his free will to make any poor choices.  Maybe this just means that God values free will so much that our decisions (about who to have sex with and what protection to use) can just kill other people.  To me, it simply shows a lack of care on God's part.  If someone who gets AIDS from a blood transfusion is meant to be a sign to tell us to stop having unprotected sex, what value does it do to the person who got AIDS?  Not that, if this were the purpose of AIDS from blood transfusions, it has been very effective in stopping unprotected sex, given the way the AIDS rate has been soaring.  The idea that God could create a child simply so that it could be born with AIDS strikes me as morally repugnant.  The child (or the blood transfusion victim, both work) had no free will in the matter.

I make all of these statements on the hypothetical that God does indeed exist.  While it would be impossible to discern his purpose in creating the universe, I think it is incredibly unlikely that, if he exists, he cares about human affairs, based on the examples I have given.  Basically all of this is to say that if God exists, this raises far too many questions for us to even begin to consider the scientific ramifications of his existence.  But, based on pure speculation, it seems very unlikely that God cares about humans on anything more than a superficial level.  This video, IMO, displays why the idea that humans are the purpose of the universe's existence is so unlikely.  I realize that we can't ever conclusively rule out God's existence.  However, atheism is not only the belief that God doesn't exist (although it can be), but it is also better defined as the conscious absence of belief in any supernatural powers.  While the concept of deism is palatable to me, I see no reason to believe there is any deity that created the universe unless scientific evidence points towards it.

[Bono]

Secondly, I don't consider John Darby a prophet in any sense of the word.  Cutting and pasting pieces of the bible from all over and filling in a story to fit your position inbetween them and assuming it is all undebatable fact isn't research - it's claiming prophethood all in it's own.   At least the LDS church has the sense to call their new findings the discovery of latter day saints, as opposed to the dispensationalists, who like to pretend that it is all obvious as day as long as nobody looks too closely at their claims.

You're really attacking a strawman, since there aren't really any hardcore dispensationalists here. The one that comes closer is jmfcst, and he's more of a progressive dispensationalist.

I don't know about afleich, but I am a covenant [orthodox] preterist amillenialist (with postmillenialist leakings).

[J. J.]

Wow, we have a number of budding theologians here.

I say no for a variety of reasons.

Firstly, revaltaions seem 'tacked on' to me.  I've never understood why some people put such high relavance on it - especially compared to the gospels.  It seems like many of those obsessed with end times tend to forget or ignore the whole "love they neighbor as theyself" and "blessed are the peacemakers' parts so often. 

I was told by one of my old priests that when the canon was decided, it was included by one vote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is a reasonable body of evidence that it does refer to Nero's prosecution of Christians.  It also should be noted that 1000 years after being written, everything that made a pretense of being the Roman Empire was Christian (both officially and in general practice).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

However, the introduction of a deity as a solution to the question of why we exist raises more questions than it answers.

isn't that usually the case with exploration and discovery?  don't space probes to planets raise more questions than they answer? 

it is simply a function of discovering how ignorant we really are.

---

Where is this deity, and why did it create the universe?

yet, those very questions are directly and explicitly answered in the bible.

---

The question of whether any sort of supernatural power(s) exist is essentially meaningless, because if they do exist, we have no idea of knowing what their qualities are and why they created us.

again, all answered in the bible

---

What we can discern is that if there is a deity, they a.) don't care about human affairs very much, as demonstrated by numerous factors

actually, God cared so much that he revealed himself in human form through Jesus Christ

---

(the incredible detail put into the millions of species that inhabit the earth

yet God placed humans in charge of all of the earth and made us rulers over it

---

as contrasted to the short timespan of human existence, the sheer size of the universe and the relative insignificance of the earth and even our solar system

which only demonstrate to us the eternal qualities of God

---

, and the existence of immense suffering and evil within the world)

all caused by our sin

---

and thus b.) are not deserving of our worship, love, devotion, or admiration.

so, you hate God because life isn't fair...how is that news?

[JSojourner]

Believing in the second coming, the rapture, or whatever one wishs to call it is a mental disorder.  Why? Because there is no such thing.  To believe in something that does not exist is a mental disorder.  It is to say that Jesus rose from the dead when in fact, dead people don't rise from the dead.  This is not to say that Jesus did not exist, because he did, and he was a wonderful man.  However, the "story" that he rose from the dead is only a story because, as I already stated, dead people don't rise. 

Okay, let's look at it another way.

Jesus Christ existed.  You grant that.  So do I.

On numerous occasions, this "wonderful man" claimed to be God...accepted worship from other people...and was tried and executed because of this.  Remember, though Rome ruled Palestine, all matters theological were relegated to the courts of the Sanhedrin.  And they did not kill Jesus because he feed the poor or called for social justice.  They killed him because he said, "Before Abraham was, I AM."  For a Jew to say, "I AM" is the very soul of heresy.  It is to say, quite unmistakably, "I AM that I AM."  He said he had the power to destroy the temple in three days.  And raise the temple up in as much time.  Whether he spoke of his body or the temple in Jerusalem -- he was claiming to possess the power of God.

So, I wish to challenge your assertion that Jesus was a wonderful man.

Can anyone claim such divinity and power and not be evil?  Or insane?

Jesus was crazy.  Or a rotten person who led people astray.

Or...

He was who he claimed to be.

In which case, resurrection from the dead is a no-brainer.

[KEmperor]

Jesus was crazy.  Or a rotten person who led people astray.

That's all you really needed to say, to hit the nail on the head as it were.

[JSojourner]

Jesus was crazy.  Or a rotten person who led people astray.

That's all you really needed to say, to hit the nail on the head as it were.

Well, I added something I think is essential.  A third option.  He was crazy.  Or insane.  Or He was precisely who He claimed to be.  )

[Gabu]

Okay, let's look at it another way.

Jesus Christ existed.  You grant that.  So do I.

On numerous occasions, this "wonderful man" claimed to be God...accepted worship from other people...and was tried and executed because of this.  Remember, though Rome ruled Palestine, all matters theological were relegated to the courts of the Sanhedrin.  And they did not kill Jesus because he feed the poor or called for social justice.  They killed him because he said, "Before Abraham was, I AM."  For a Jew to say, "I AM" is the very soul of heresy.  It is to say, quite unmistakably, "I AM that I AM."  He said he had the power to destroy the temple in three days.  And raise the temple up in as much time.  Whether he spoke of his body or the temple in Jerusalem -- he was claiming to possess the power of God.

So, I wish to challenge your assertion that Jesus was a wonderful man.

Can anyone claim such divinity and power and not be evil?  Or insane?

Jesus was crazy.  Or a rotten person who led people astray.

Or...

He was who he claimed to be.

In which case, resurrection from the dead is a no-brainer.

Why is it a dichotomy between actually being the Son of God and being evil and insane?  It seems to me that it would be entirely possible for someone who truly believes himself to be the Son of God (and is not) to still have a good message to tell.

[WMS]

Jesus was crazy.  Or a rotten person who led people astray.

That's all you really needed to say, to hit the nail on the head as it were.

It is comments like this that ensure the United States will never elect an atheist President.