Ibelieve

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but the "western Protestant versions of the canon" just so happen to agree with the canon that was chosen by 170 ad. That was long before Roman Catholocism, Greek Ortodoxy, or the Reformation movement and some of the political processes that you mentioned. So I am not discounting politics within the church. It's history is full of interesting politics, including the 1611 KJ version. As I have stated before, I love the Bible, I love science, and FYI, I also love church history.

Um, actually not a semantic definition at all it is a biblical one. Jesus chose twelve men to be his disciples. Eleven chose to faithfully follow him. One did not. Ultimately only God can see deep into the heart to distinguish that faithfulness. The diciples were commanded to go and make disciples. They were to baptize them, and then teach them to obey everthing that He had commanded them. That's the biblical comandment and process regarding discipleship. It looks like a life long process to me. Actually throughout the scripture it is described as a life long process. Some disciples are faithful to the end. Some are not.

Ibelieve

I think it's quite OK to claim the inerrancy of scripture. This is a matter of faith. However the interpretation of scripture is quite another thing. I don't think we are given permission to interpret the scripture (translation is not interpretation). But we are allowed to understand it. Those are two separate and distict concepts. My understanding of certain scriptures has changed significantly over the years. Interpretations, however, usually become doctrines, and are generally fought for and defended. Interpretations do not allow for growth, while understandings do.

You may think this is semantics also, but it is important distinctions that have scriptual basis.

Chili

. . . the Catholic one.

Joan of Bark

Jewish ones, only.

Matthew 10: 5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.

Later passages attributed to Jesus in Matthew, Mark, and Luke ordering the disciples to preach to "all nations" appear to be interpolations added to justify the large number of gentiles becoming Christians. (We know the last 12 verses in Mark do not appear in the earliest extant versions).

Further evidence that Jesus never meant his message for gentiles?

Matthew 15:24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

-Jay-

No, the Western Protestant versions happen to agree with Melito's list. That's a subtle difference. There wasn't a "canon" chosen in 170. There was a list made. Even then, it left out Esther (not a great loss, but still a difference.)

In any case, you've not stated anything that runs counter to the notion of "orthodoxy drives canon" (and perhaps you didn't intend to), which still leaves one with the reasonable conclusion that men picked the books that served their purposes to include in the canon.

Church history is rife with re-evaluations of orthodoxy. The Protestant Reformation was one. The Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement is a more recent one. They're human differences of interpretation - not divine mandates.

It's most certainly a semantic definition. If you define a Christian as being one who follows Jesus, you've just gone and defined it in terms of itself, and said absolutely nothing about how one goes about doing that.

Now, you clarify a little when you go on to sort of define discipleship, but even then there are nuances that must be considered, such as the differences in the practices of the early Jewish Christians and the early Gentile Christians, or for that matter all of the groups that we've come to term heretical groups because they didn't win the orthodoxy battle. Do you honestly think that those groups didn't believe they were doing the right things? How do you know your interpretation is correct?

regards,

NinJay

-Jay-

Every time you pick one church to attend over another, you're implicitly accepting one interpretation over another. You cannot and will not find a church that doesn't overlay interpretation on the bible. Even ones that claim not to will differ in which passages they claim are to be interpreted literally and which are to be interpreted metaphorically, and every one will assert that they're on solid scriptural ground in doing so.

Heck, even within a given congregation, no two people will interpret (or understand, to use your term) the entire bible in exactly the same way. Now, perhaps you'll claim that this is OK, and that the bible speaks to each person uniquely (I'd probably agree with that statement, but likely for different reasons than you'd cite), but the net result is that you really can't avoid the conclusion that there isn't one single interpretation of the bible that you can point to and say "this is THE correct interpretation".

Where this becomes a problem is when people begin to construct the logic-proof box necessary to preserve their interpretation against any disconfirming evidence, effectively saying "faith beats everything else."

regards,

Ninjay

Ibelieve

[QUOTE=NinJay;5147704] Interpretation and orthodoxy is different from canonicity. Certainly there are interpretive issues throuhout the history of the church. I was born a Methodist, converted to a Cambellite, and now I am a heretic. Does that help you understand me?

Carl Ketcherside was known as a champion debater for the Cambellite Movement. But through a process of maturing in Christ he realized that what he was doing was not building the church, or making disciples, but destroying them. All of this for the "good" fight of orthodoxy. Upon coverting from this approach, he began to rethink (understand) the scriptures. One of his comments that has stuck with me for a long time has been: " You can be wrong about alot of doctrines, and right Jesus and go to Heaven. And you can be right about alot of doctrines and wrong about Jesus and go to Hell." Now certainly there is nothing doctrinal about that, but it does show a lot of wisdom.

I do not know "my" interpretations are correct. I accept the Bible as being correct. When I teach, I always caution people not to take me at my word. The only words that really matter are God's.

deadman_932

And no one can claim to "know" absolutely which of the words contained in the Bible might be God's and which are not. One would think an omniscient, omnipotent being would have made their "word" impossible to doubt or misunderstand or misinterpret.

An easy way of restating this would be:
If the Christian conceptual God exists, there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and "perfectly good'. If there is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, his revelation should be error-free, unambiguously clear, and objectively verifiable as true. Conversely, if it is not, then one should provide valid reasoning as to why this should be so; If God in fact wanted humans to receive the word of God and be drawn toward it -- why then is the Bible neither error-free, unambiguously clear, nor objectively verifiable in large stretches of major claims? In fact, the Bible is shown false in claims of monumental proportions like a "global" flood that covers all the high mountains of the Earth. (note that saying it was a local flood negates the concept of ridding the entire world of wicked men).

It all seems pretty silly to me to depend on Bibliolatry for one's faith.

-Jay-

Except for the last part, yeah. (Heretic means a lot of different things to different people, so I suspect that you and I would define it somewhat differently and in terms of our own backgrounds. That's fine. I appreciate your clarification.)

I agree that interpretation and orthodoxy are different from canonicity. However, it is my position that the orthodoxy and canon both define each other and are defined by each other - it's a feedback loop.

I reject the notion that "the canon" exists as anything other than a collection of books designated by humans with human agendas - it wasn't revealed.

This, however, is a discussion that may be better suited for either its own thread in BC&H, or perhaps in a thread in GRD. I leave it to my moderator colleagues in BC&H to decide appropriately.

regards,

NinJay

Baalazel

I once found myself standing at the podium in a beautiful sanctuary looking down at the faces gathered there to here my sermon. It suddenly occurred to me that I had no right to tell them I understood the mind of God. I cut the service short and never gave another one.

It is not possible to present yourself as an intimate of God. And that is surely what every minister does no matter how he protests otherwise. And I firmly believe that no educated minister can not know that he lies to his congregation regularly.

He lies if he tells them the Bible he holds is the result of Divine inspiration. He lies because he knows it is meaningless to make the claim. He lies if he tells them that he can lead them to a greater understanding of the Bible. He lies because he knows that studying the Bible leads to more doubt and less faith. He lies most of all to himself in an effort to replace the doubt with more faith. The Christian pulpit is the greatest source of falsehood to be found.

That it is necessary to resort to more than one Bible or more than one language is a profound admission of the failure of the Biblical culture. It fails those who have no access to such talismans of wealth. It is a sin of vast proportion to hold in your hands the accumulated knowledge of three thousand years of Biblical study and know that so many without your privilege and wealth will die having never known of it. It is an even greater sin to hold yourself above them as though you were somehow more worthy of Gods love because you can afford to purchase it.

There are no gods. I know of no need for them therefore they do not exist. Baalazel is a small joke I amuse myself with at the expense of Christians.

Baal