I didn't want to jump in, but please start a thread or something with a discussion on the following, some points which perplex me.
I think we have spoken a bit about the possible authors of the Gospels, I don't remember it ending properly, or it being much of a discussion, I think it mainly fizzled out under the broad topic of threads. So I'd like some reasons why you truly feel the apostles wrote the Gospels and why that is a more probable position than any other.
Also please cite some evidence for the death of any of the disciples of Jesus, which can be said to be historically probable.
hola Al Habeshi,
the textual 'Gospels' are different (but related) from what Christians, especially Catholics, call 'the Gospel.' 'the Gospel' refers to the original traditions and oral teachings of Jesus passed on from Jesus to the disciples and then to the first generations of the Church, collectively referred to as 'the apostles.' at that point two things happened, the received 'Gospel' was written down by various apostles (some of whom included the original disciples) according to how they had recieved them, thus becomming 'the Gospels' and simultaneously the living tradition 'the Gospel' continued to grow within the confines of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church guided by the Holy Spirit and collectively stewarded by the five Patriarchs, the prince of whom is the Pope.
so think of the text gospels as snapshots of the living tradition that was begun by Jesus and carried into the present day. the importance for us (especially Catholics) is the chain of transmission, what you might call an 'isnad,' which traces one of the written gospels back to an apostolic source. if it does not then that is proof that gospel does not come from the living tradition called 'the Gospel.' the early Church, which is the living tradition and second half of 'the Gospel' painstakingly reviewed the validity of these chains to determine actual apostolic origin, their determinations ruled out some texts as false and others as true.
obviously not everything that claims to be a legitimate Gospel purporting to trace back to an actual apostle is truthful in this regard.
the work of modern scholars is questionable at best, looking back from 2000 years at a movement which by secular accounts was not worthy of comment (thus providing little to no data), without inheriting the rich oral traditions and history that the Church Fathers held at that time, and religiously without guidance by the Holy Spirit, these modern authors lack both the authority and the context to 'double check' the work of the Holy Fathers. i've seen some rather ridiculous attempts to assert the validity of 'other Gospels' like that of 'Barnabas' which was clearly a medieval forgery, or the supposed existance of 'Q documents' which amount to nothing more than a totally unfounded myth that the similarities of Luke and Mark are not the result of their shared oral tradition but rather a written account of proverbs and phrases attributed to Jesus and from a much earlier time period, ie the apocryphal 'gospel of Thomas' in disguise.
these misguided attempts reflect the western secular agenda of tearing down the agreed upon opinion regarding the origins and beginnings of Christianity, merely because these opinions are completely in sync with the early Christian accounts... something which rings alarm bells for secular 'scholars,' or other opportunists desiring to profit from their lies.
However, Jesus did not teach the abandonment of the Jewish law.
To say that Jesus did not teach the abandonment of Jewish law is quite true. However, that is not to say that what Jesus came for was to bring a message about how one should keep the Jewish law.
From a Christian point of view, Jesus wasn't calling people back to the truth. Jesus never said that the teachings of Moses were wrong. (BTW, nor did Paul.) What he offered was a brand new covenant with God that did not require keeping a set of laws at all, but was based on trust in God's grace and God's righteousness rather than our own failed righteousness.
The acts that Jesus called for his disciples to do, i.e. "love one another", where born not out of the law (though certainly the law does command people to love as well), but out of their relationship to him, i.e. "as I have loved you", and again "I am the vine and you are the branches...abide in me". It wouldn't be enough for the rich man to sell all of his possession, he had to come and follow Jesus as well. It is the connection the Jesus makes with us that is the means of salvation. The Chrsit's act of a sinless sacrificial offering of himself in our place on the cross, rather than our sinless keeping of the law, is simply God's plan on how to establish that connection.
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 11-29-2007 at 03:33 AM.
My understanding of Jesus' message was one of mercy, humility, charity, and love that was lacking in the mainstream Jewish community of his time. The Good Samaritan, mercy shown to the adulterous woman, healing on the Sabbath and Jesus washing the disciples feet illustrate this perspective. The Jews were following the letter of the Judaic law, but they were missing the spirit of serving God by serving others.
My understanding of Jesus' message was one of mercy, humility, charity, and love that was lacking in the mainstream Jewish community of his time. The Good Samaritan, mercy shown to the adulterous woman, healing on the Sabbath and Jesus washing the disciples feet illustrate this perspective. The Jews were following the letter of the Judaic law, but they were missing the spirit of serving God by serving others.
Yes. Again all of that is true. But it misses the essential essence of who and what Jesus was about, at least that picture presented to us by the Gospel writers.
Just look at the number of pages that the gospels give to Jesus preaching and miracles, and look at the number of pages that the gospels give to Jesus passion and resurrection. While a few more pages are given to his teaching ministry, that was a period covering some 3 years time, compare that with the amount of space it taken to tell us of Jesus' passion and resurrection. So, which message do you think was most important to the gospel writers -- the 3 years of ministry they related in 125 pages (in my Bible) or the Passion (less than one week of Jesus' life starting on Palm Sunday's entry into Jerusalem through the Crucifixion) and Resurrection to which they devoted 63 pages? Basically a full third of the Gospel is devoted to the final week and act of Jesus' life. If it was Jesus' message that was so important why wasn't more attention paid to it? Why is the focus on this event that Muslims say never even happened?
Jesus' real message wasn't delivered with words at all. The message IS the cross.
Yes. Again all of that is true. But it misses the essential essence of who and what Jesus was about, at least that picture presented to us by the Gospel writers.
Just look at the number of pages that the gospels give to Jesus preaching and miracles, and look at the number of pages that the gospels give to Jesus passion and resurrection. ... If it was Jesus' message that was so important why wasn't more attention paid to it? Why is the focus on this event that Muslims say never even happened?
Jesus' real message wasn't delivered with words at all. The message IS the cross.
If the death, burial and ressurrection is Jesus' real Message, why did the 11 disciples set other criteria for the one replacing Judas? Acts 1:21-23 Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection. And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
Again this illustrates the shift in focus from Jesus' life and ministry as a pattern for one's life to the calim of his Divine being and his act of sacrifice as a means to achieve salvation. In the first, the focus is on serving God through serving others, while the focus of the latter is on Jesus, the "Son of God" hanging on the cross, as the object of worship.
Matthew 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. This is further illustrated by the greatest commandment Matthew 22:36-40 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like [unto it] is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets. Note that the focus in the first part is on the worship of God - he did not say "Thou shalt love me, the Lord thy God." The object is on another - that I interpret as the Father - the One God.
Yes, the focus of the NT gospels is on the death, burial and ressurrection. The question is whether this was by God's design or by man's. We Muslims say that it didn't happen, because the Qur'an says so in 4:157 They even say: "We have killed the Messiah, Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam, the Rasool of Allah." Whereas in fact, neither did they kill him nor did they crucify him but they thought they did because the matter was made dubious for them. Those who differ therein are only in doubt. They have no real knowledge, they follow nothing but merely a conjecture, certainly they did not kill him (Jesus).
When it comes to the issue of the early Church and the mission to the Gentiles, one must also use a little practicality. Romans would not follow a foreign law, especially not a law that required them to circumsize. I believe that the early Church stated that Romans could become Christians without circumcision and without following the Jewish dietary law, as long as they did not drink blood, did not involve themselves in pagan worship, and did not break the laws of sexual morality. There is the law, and then there is the "spirit" of the law. I would think Paul and the other early Church leaders felt it was more important for the Romans to accept Christ as their Savior than it was for the Romans to embrace circumcision.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
When it comes to the issue of the early Church and the mission to the Gentiles, one must also use a little practicality. Romans would not follow a foreign law, especially not a law that required them to circumsize. I believe that the early Church stated that Romans could become Christians without circumcision and without following the Jewish dietary law, as long as they did not drink blood, did not involve themselves in pagan worship, and did not break the laws of sexual morality. There is the law, and then there is the "spirit" of the law. I would think Paul and the other early Church leaders felt it was more important for the Romans to accept Christ as their Savior than it was for the Romans to embrace circumcision.
This all seems quite reasonable, but how does one establish Divine direction to make these adaptations as opposed to human practicality? I see less and less Divine origin for the NT and for the ministry to Gentiles than Christians generally believe.
This illustrates a fundamental difference that I see between Christianity and Islam. We Muslims take prophethood and Divine revelation very seriously. Since we accept Prophet Muhammad (saaws) as the Last Messenger of Allah, our sources of Divine knowledge are primarily the Qur'an (direct revelation) and secondarily the Sunnah (practical application) of Muhammad (saaws).
How would you fill in the blanks? Since Christians accept _________ as Messengers of God, their sources of Divine knowledge are primarily the ________ (direct revelation) and secondarily the _______ (practical application).
This all seems quite reasonable, but how does one establish Divine direction to make these adaptations as opposed to human practicality? I see less and less Divine origin for the NT and for the ministry to Gentiles than Christians generally believe.
This illustrates a fundamental difference that I see between Christianity and Islam. We Muslims take prophethood and Divine revelation very seriously. Since we accept Prophet Muhammad (saaws) as the Last Messenger of Allah, our sources of Divine knowledge are primarily the Qur'an (direct revelation) and secondarily the Sunnah (practical application) of Muhammad (saaws).
How would you fill in the blanks? Since Christians accept _________ as Messengers of God, their sources of Divine knowledge are primarily the ________ (direct revelation) and secondarily the _______ (practical application).
I wouldn't even use that sentence as a starting point. As you said, one of the fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam. Rather it is more like:
Since Christians experience the divine leading of the Holy Spirit, we recognize this same experience took place in the lives of the apostles and others who wrote under such inspiration. This same Holy Spirit then led the church to accept these writings a guides for faith and practice at the time of their receiving, and the witness of this same Spirit continues to affirm them as true and valid for us still today.
Adding to that, Christ set up the guidelines quite clearly as to who would be blessed with salvation. Those who accepted Him as their Savior. That acceptance is a way of life. Paul and the others did not go easy on the Romans, as they were still expected to follow this way of life. Anyone familiar with Roman society during this period will understand the major change this would bring to a Roman's life.
As another example of Paul and Timothy's outlook on spreading the "Good News", when Timothy planned to travel to a Hellenisitic Jewish community to preach, he was circumsized in order to follow the cultural norms of that community. So it went both ways. It wasn't that Paul was against circumcision, it was all about getting the message out without alienating those to whom you were bringing the promise of salvation.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
I wouldn't even use that sentence as a starting point. As you said, one of the fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam. Rather it is more like: Since Christians experience the divine leading of the Holy Spirit, we recognize this same experience took place in the lives of the apostles and others who wrote under such inspiration. This same Holy Spirit then led the church to accept these writings a guides for faith and practice at the time of their receiving, and the witness of this same Spirit continues to affirm them as true and valid for us still today.
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,
Greeting Gene,
i just want to see if i can make sense of the last bit here: this same Holy Spirit then led ALL THE DIFFERENT churches to accept these writings EXCEPT THOSE THAT WE CAN'T AGREE ON for faith and practice OF COURSE LEAVING ROOM FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT FAITHS AND PRACTICES an the time of their receiving, and the witness of the same Spirit continues to affirm as true and valid for us today EXCEPT THOSE IN WHICH WE DIFFER AS BEING TRUE AND VALID..
one would think that there would be a little less confusion when one is lead by one third of God, unless of course one doesn't give credence to a trinity...
Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html
i just want to see if i can make sense of the last bit here: this same Holy Spirit then led ALL THE DIFFERENT churches to accept these writings EXCEPT THOSE THAT WE CAN'T AGREE ON for faith and practice OF COURSE LEAVING ROOM FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT FAITHS AND PRACTICES an the time of their receiving, and the witness of the same Spirit continues to affirm as true and valid for us today EXCEPT THOSE IN WHICH WE DIFFER AS BEING TRUE AND VALID..
one would think that there would be a little less confusion when one is lead by one third of God, unless of course one doesn't give credence to a trinity...
You are the one who interjected the line, "except for those that we can't agree on," not I. Care to specify which ones it is that you are saying the church was unable to agree on?
You are the one who interjected the line, "except for those that we can't agree on," not I. Care to specify which ones it is that you are saying the church was unable to agree on?
perhaps we can start with the apocrypha! :thankyou:
is the Holy Spirit with the denominations that accept them or with those that don't?
unless there has been some mass meeting where "Christians" now agree on all Scripture! oh:
Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html
Since Christians experience the divine leading of the Holy Spirit, we recognize this same experience took place in the lives of the apostles and others who wrote under such inspiration. This same Holy Spirit then led the church to accept these writings a guides for faith and practice at the time of their receiving, and the witness of this same Spirit continues to affirm them as true and valid for us still today.
I agree that this is an accurate statement regarding Christian claims of Divine origin for their Scripture and their religion through the agency of the Holy Spirit. It remains a fundamental point of contention between Muslims and Christians regarding the foundations for our respective religions. We Muslims accept Muhammad (saaws) as the human agent through which Allah established Islam through the spiritual agency of the Angel Jibra'il. Quran 5:3 ...Today the unbelievers have given up all their hope of vanquishing your religion. Have no fear of them, fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, completed my favor upon you and approved Al-Islam as a Deen (way of life for you).... Our religion was firmly established by the death of Prophet Muhammad (saaws) and any changes in Islam are seen as unacceptable bida or innovation. We believe that the Qur'an and our means of worship remain essentially identical with what Muhammad (saaws) recited and practiced in the 7th century C.E. The Christian Bible and forms of worship have less well defined origins, but faith in the Divine origins for our respective religions is an intangible that can't be transmitted to unbelievers. We both agree that guidance comes but from God.
perhaps we can start with the apocrypha! :thankyou:
is the Holy Spirit with the denominations that accept them or with those that don't?
unless there has been some mass meeting where "Christians" now agree on all Scripture! oh:
Rather than listing the books of the apocrypha, I'm just going to reference this article from the New Advent Encyclopedia, Apocrypha. Now recall my words:
This same Holy Spirit then led the church to accept these writings a guides for faith and practice at the time of their receiving
The Holy Spirit never led the church to accept these writings. They were never received by any denomination, that small fact renders the rest of your questions moot.
Perhaps you were meaning to refer to the Deuterocanon -- those books accepted by Catholics and Orthodox but not seen as canonical by protestants?
And again, I would say when they were received, it was just as I previously said, the church understood that the Holy Spirit led them to accept these writings a guides for faith and practice. So, the obvious question becomes, "Why, if the Holy Spirit had led them to be received, did some see fit to remove them later and other still retained them?" Or as you put it:
is the Holy Spirit with the denominations that accept them or with those that don't?
Well, I think that the Holy Spirit is with all the denominations, both those that accept them and those that do not. But I will grant you that sometimes we humans are not the best interpreters of the Holy Spirit. Hence, one group of us has it wrong. Which? I don't know. I guess I'm betting my money on those that don't include the Deuterocanon, but if I'm wrong, I am prepared to lean on God's grace with regard to that mistake, just as I will have to with regard to many others I have made in my life.
Hey.
I was thinking about going christian.
In order to prepare, Ive followed jesus's teachings and sold all my possessions and im sitting in a field with no clothes or food or anything.. (this 'putor belongs to a Heathen mates).
The only thing I havnt sold yet is the Wife (Exodus 20:17
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
I Know she's my possession and I'm trying to flog her off, so I was wondering what the going price was. She's about 40 and a bit dishonouring of husbands.
Any ideas?
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
Hey.
I was thinking about going christian.
In order to prepare, Ive followed jesus's teachings and sold all my possessions and im sitting in a field with no clothes or food or anything.. (this 'putor belongs to a Heathen mates).
The only thing I havnt sold yet is the Wife (Exodus 20:17
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
I Know she's my possession and I'm trying to flog her off, so I was wondering what the going price was. She's about 40 and a bit dishonouring of husbands.
Any ideas?
First you're gonna have to move to a country where wife selling is legal. But once you get there I suggesting putting a very soft bit in her mouth (don't want to damage the teeth, you know), and see how good she is at plowing. If she's no good at that, even though she's already 40, you might see how many children she can still bear you. Then you can sell them off as they come of age. I know that the time element involved can be quite an investment, but in the long run while you won't get anything for her, you can reap quite a reward from her progeny. Now, if she's past her prime on that, about all that's left that she might be good for is cooking and cleaning and things like that. Personally, I find that people are hardly willing to give you anything for those types of services, so you might as well just keep her at home and love her and cherish her till death do you part.
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 12-03-2007 at 04:11 PM.
Rather than listing the books of the apocrypha, I'm just going to reference this article from the New Advent Encyclopedia, Apocrypha. Now recall my words: The Holy Spirit never led the church to accept these writings. They were never received by any denomination, that small fact renders the rest of your questions moot.
Perhaps you were meaning to refer to the Deuterocanon -- those books accepted by Catholics and Orthodox but not seen as canonical by protestants?
yes, those would be the ones...
And again, I would say when they were received, it was just as I previously said, the church understood that the Holy Spirit led them to accept these writings a guides for faith and practice. So, the obvious question becomes, "Why, if the Holy Spirit had led them to be received, did some see fit to remove them later and other still retained them?" Or as you put it:
Well, I think that the Holy Spirit is with all the denominations, both those that accept them and those that do not. But I will grant you that sometimes we humans are not the best interpreters of the Holy Spirit.
you would think it would be different, eh?
Hence, one group of us has it wrong.
which kinda proves "The Church" wrong, unless the Protestant Groups were first...
Which? I don't know. I guess I'm betting my money on those that don't include the Deuterocanon, but if I'm wrong, I am prepared to lean on God's grace with regard to that mistake, just as I will have to with regard to many others I have made in my life.
Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,
Greetings Gene,
i saw that you were dealing with this in another thread, but i gotta ask:
what about the verse about the 3 witnesses in heaven? how could it go in AND out? how could "one of those witnesses" mislead us or be wrong? one WOULD think that it would be something that it would be absolutely clear on...
unless folks are just "guessing"!
and quit trying to render my questions moot!!
Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html
what about the verse about the 3 witnesses in heaven? how could it go in AND out? how could "one of those witnesses" mislead us or be wrong? one WOULD think that it would be something that it would be absolutely clear on...
I assume the verse you are referring to is 1 John 5:6-8: This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." But I am not sure how that applies to this discussion. I said that we humans are sometimes poor interpreters of the Spirit. Haven't you ever been someplace where two people heard exactly the same thing, but had two completely different understandings from it? Much communication depends on the receptivity of the hearer, not just the one who testifies.
unless folks are just "guessing"!
Wouldn't put anything past a human being.
BTW, I suspect that the Catholic church is in error in considering the Deuterocanon as scripture, but I can understand how they came to that determination.
Try this crazy idea on for size. If an authenticated copy of something that Jesus had written about himself was to suddenly become available today, should the canon of scripture be reopened and said document included?
Some would say, "Obviously, YES!"
But many would say, "Not so fast. If it is true that the present scriptures already contain, as we have professed for centuries, enough to be sufficient and all that is necessary for salvation and faith and practice, then nothing else is needed, and that would hence include something produced even by Jesus himself. If the Holy Spirit had truly wanted the Church to have access to it for the purpose of being considered as Scripture, it would have been made known before.
You see, the Christian understanding of what makes for scripture is very, VERY different from that understanding used within Islam.
I assume the verse you are referring to is 1 John 5:6-8: This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." But I am not sure how that applies to this discussion. I said that we humans are sometimes poor interpreters of the Spirit. Haven't you ever been someplace where two people heard exactly the same thing, but had two completely different understandings from it? Much communication depends on the receptivity of the hearer, not just the one who testifies.
Yes, but those folks don't claim to be led by the Holy Spirit.
Wouldn't put anything past a human being.
BTW, I suspect that the Catholic church is in error in considering the Deuterocanon as scripture, but I can understand how they came to that determination.
BUT, and IF, they are the "original" church, how could there be error? unless...
Try this crazy idea on for size. If an authenticated copy of something that Jesus had written about himself was to suddenly become available today, should the canon of scripture be reopened and said document included?
Some would say, "Obviously, YES!"
But many would say, "Not so fast. If it is true that the present scriptures already contain, as we have professed for centuries, enough to be sufficient and all that is necessary for salvation and faith and practice, then nothing else is needed, and that would hence include something produced even by Jesus himself. If the Holy Spirit had truly wanted the Church to have access to it for the purpose of being considered as Scripture, it would have been made known before.
You see, the Christian understanding of what makes for scripture is very, VERY different from that understanding used within Islam.
Peace be upon those that follow the guidance,
Greetings Gene,
of course you know that my thoughts about these matters predates my Islam.
btw, i found a wonderful little sentiment in a Mesorah Publications book, The Rubin Edition of The Early Prophets with a Commentary Anthologized From The Rabbinic Writings I&II Kings by Rabbi Nosson Scherman [you should check these out along with the "Stone" Chumash, quite incredible works!]
after a note on I Kings 12:33 where Jeroboam offers the service for his "new" holiday, the Rabbii offers this little jewell: How could this happen so quickly? At first glance, it seems unfathomable that large numbers of the people of God could discard their heritage so quickly and easily. There were so many factors; a popular norther king and an unpopular southern king, the rationalizations mentioned above(erm sorry, other notes), royal coercion, and the typical human attraction toward novel ideads and rituals. To this one must add the Satan's powerful effort to drag Israel down from its noble calling. Less than six weeks after receiving the Ten Commandents, the nation toppled from its lofty spiritual pinacle. The same thing happened when Adan and Eve were enticed to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. The power of evil fights mightily when it is in danger of extinction. .
The power of evil fights mightily when it is in danger of extinction. i love that line! [remember me when you use it]
just some food for thought...
:thankyou:
Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html
BTW, I suspect that the Catholic church is in error in considering the Deuterocanon as scripture, but I can understand how they came to that determination.
BUT, and IF, they are the "original" church, how could there be error? unless...
Unless.... Unless what?
While the Catholic church like to teach that they were without error. I don't believe that any human institution is without error. And the Church (be it the New Testament Church, the present day Roman Catholic Church, or my local United Methodist Church is a divine/human institution. It is blessed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and cursed by that guidance being interpreted by fallible human beings. I don't think we even have to introduce the concept of the the intervention of Satan to arrive at that. Now, surely there will be plenty of Christians who disagree with me on that sort of view of the Church. But my answer to you remains that the Holy Spirit guided the Church. On the whole I believe we got it right because of that guidance. But I don't claim that we got it perfect and that no errors have been made in transmission. Among them most assuredly is either that the protestants use 7 books too few or the Catholics and Orthodox use 7 books too many. I've made my call on that, others have made theirs. I would say that we'll find out in heaven, but I have a feeling when we get there, that we will suddenly no longer be concerned with that question and may fail to even ask as at that time all truth will be revealed to us going so far beyond that which is made known to us now as to render such discussion not just moot, but superflous.
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
oh:
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks