Peter Kirby

Suppose that Diocletian had successfully destroyed every last copy of the New Testament. Would that have crushed faith in Christ? Is it so fragile?

Riverwind

I suppose, if one believes in God, then would one believe that he would have allowed his word to be totally destroyed?

If Diocletian had destroyed every last copy, then how would we know what to believe? Would it not have been written down again? If we didn't have the Bible from which to learn and have faith in, then wouldn't we simply have faith in people's recollections of Christ and what our faith is about?

How would faith in the traditions be any different in faith in the Bible?

Again, how can you be a "Christian" without knowing about "Christ" and his teachings and following them? That, I don't understand. I would simply be a believer in God, trying to do what I, myself, perceived as "good" not what the bible or tradition told me was "good" by God's standard.

Peter Kirby

Ya already are. You don't know that the bible/tradition is God's standard. You have decided this either by reason or by faith. If by faith, you have made yourself a paper god. If by reason, then you are in no different boat than the deist, only with different conclusions.

Do you have a paper god?

GakuseiDon

The early Christians apparently were thought to eat babies as part of their worshipping practices, but it was done as a service for God. Early Church Father Tertullian contrasts it unfavorably with pagan practices, where babies weren't killed ceremoniously but by exposing them to the elements:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.iv.viii.i.xv.html

We [Christians] begin our religious service, or initiate our mysteries, with slaying an infant... you [pagans] do not kill your infants in the way of a sacred rite, nor (as a service) to God. But then you make away with them in a more cruel manner, 124because you expose them to the cold and hunger, and to wild beasts, or else you get rid of them by the slower death of drowning.

:angel:

Riverwind

I consider this a false bifurcation. I have decided this by both faith and reason. There is no reason one cannot have both. It has taken me much of my life to understand this. There is more to life than intellect and intelligence, as you seem to be discovering, yet neither can it be all feeling and emotion.

If by both, the one believes that God's message was intentionally preserved ("just enough", I suppose) for his main and major message(s) to come down through time to us. These messages were passed on from Jew to Jew and then Christian to Christian down to us today. I understand quite well the transmission process, and consider the textual "disruption" minor. Must I take it on faith that the message has survived in tact to me? Sure, and I do.

Do I believe that God can communicate with us today outside the Bible? Sure, but I think it is much more difficult for us to decipher...or perhaps it is just so for me. Do you have difficultly discerning God's will for your life as a Christian?

I certainly do not believe so. I believe he is a living, personal God.

However, I believe that one of the main ways that I can know about his will for my life and my actions is through the Bible. Without the Bible, I would be making God in my own image.

Are you making God in your own image? Are you making him what you want him to be and making whatever you feel is "right" or "wrong" to be what God must think is "right" and "wrong"? I don't believe this is the way God works. I believe God helps guide us along in the right direction by "feelings" and "emotions", but I also believe that the Bible is his direct communication to us through his messengers.

So, it is not via scriptures alone that we can know God, but I still don't understand how one can be a Christian without the Bible. One can be a God-believer but seriously how can one be a Christian without know about Christ or what it actually means to follow a Christ? It makes no "rational" sense to me.

Peter Kirby

I suppose I am making several arguments.

1. The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch.
2. The disciples who were first called Christians at Antioch did not have a Bible.
3. .:. Therefore, one can be a Christian without having a Bible.

This is elementary. But you say that you have faith in the Bible, for the alternative is a faith in your own reason to determine what is good.

1. Either what is good (and is described as such in the Bible) is good because the Bible say so, or the Bible says so because it is good.
2. If it is good because the Bible says so, then the Bible has all the authority of God.
3. The Bible does not have all the authority of God.
4. .:. It is not good because the Bible says so.
5. .:. What the Bible says is good, is good because it is good.

The third premise will need a little, but not much, elucidation.

1. If the Bible has all the authority of God, then there is an edition of the Bible that has all the authority of God.
2. If there is an edition of the Bible that has all the authority of God, God has let us know what that edition is.
3. God has not let us know what that edition is.
4. .:. There is not an edition of the Bible that has all the authority of God.
5. .:. The Bible does not have all the authority of God.

The third premise can get a second elucidation.

1. If the Bible has all the authority of God, then there is an interpretation of the Bible that has all the authority of God.
2. If there is an interpretation of the Bible that has all the authority of God, God has let us know what that interpretation is.
3. God has not let us know what that interpretation is.
4. .:. There is not an interpretation of the Bible that has all the authority of God.
5. .:. The Bible does not have all the authority of God.

Basically, what I hear Bible believers telling me is that they believe that there is some book out there--of which we don't have the text and can never be competely sure of the meaning--that reveals the message of God. The properties of this book are such that they make the ideal Bible a god.

1. A god is that which is in creation but elevated to a level with the Creator.
2. If a book is the object of faith, that book is elevated to a level with the Creator.
3. The Bible is the object of faith.
4. The Bible is in creation.
5. .:. The Bible is elevated to a level with the Creator.
6. .:. The Bible is a god.

And in the biblical sense, the Bible can only be a 'false god,' one of the empirical realities that hinder us from knowing the true God by setting up false demands on our person (just as the love of money, and other things do; so does the love of the Bible).

For these reasons, I oppose all who have faith in the Bible.

Riverwind

Phew...yes you are. I don't think I have time to get into all these issues right now, but I'll address a couple.

They had "the scriptures", that is, the Old Testament. They believed in the authority of the OT, as did Jesus. Jesus constantly quoted the OT. However, we'd know none of this, including the fact that Christians were first called so at Antioch without the Bible. You seem to at least agree that this portion of the Bible is trustworthy if you are arguing it based on the Biblical text.

I'm still not sure I agree with this, because as I mentioned, Christians still had and believed in the Hebrew scriptures. The earliest Christians did not, yet, need a "New Testament" because their "witness" was that gospel. As the first Christians began to die and those who knew them died, there was reason for their testimonies to be written down for later generations.

So, they had both a "paper Bible" that they trusted and put their faith in as well as a gospel passed on to them by the disciples via oral tradition at first.

Yes. Otherwise, we are merely making God in our own image and "his will" is merely our own. It seems that this would also be elementary, and follows what you likely know well from Jesus studies. Everyone seems to create a Jesus in their own image, rather than merely reading the texts as they were written.

I think most people can discern that, even though they may think they cannot. And, I think many (perhaps even most) modern translations do a pretty good job.

I would imagine, having read them as I know you have, that you know that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and that no one could come to the father except through him. I also know that you have read and are familiar Jesus' summary of "The Law", that is to love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and to love your neighbor as yourself. To me, those things seem crystal clear in most (if not even all) translations/versions, and it seems that one could (more or less) be a Christian from a sincere belief in and practice of these most basic of elements. Being familiar with translation and textual transmission, I have little doubt that most of the Bible, including these most basic of tenets were transmitted faithfully enough for me.

Then, I think you misunderstand them. I think they know what book...nearly any translation / version (although some will argue with you about the KJV...my personal thought on this is so what with what little difference there is...). Most of the things that are in question have to do with seeming trivialities of religion rather than the essense or seed of the Christian faith. In other words, people get caught up in the pharisaical details of the faith all over again rather than what Jesus taught...that is, the reason for the rules...love of God and love of one another.

I have to say that I think you are right on some level, here. Some people can and do make the Bible their God. I, personally, feel that KJV-onlyers do this. I think those that use the Bible only to condemn others and insist on their denomination's interpretation of religion as the only correct form based on cherry-picked Bible verses are also in grave danger of setting up the Bible as a false God.

However, I think you've vastly over-inflated the case against the Bible as a source of knowledge about God's will and desire for us as well as a source about Jesus as our savior.

Again, I think this case is overblown, but with a hint of truth behind it. Certainly the Bible can be set up as a 'false God', but I maintain that it is one of the major sources for our knowledge of God (and was so for the earliest Christians as well as for Jesus himself).

Forgive me if I think your reasons are slightly faulty. I cannot accept or understand a faith based purely on what one thinks God would want based on their own life and judgements. It puts God in a limited box of our own making.

I'm certainly not trying to tear down your newly found faith, Peter, and I'd like to understand it better. But, I don't understand how one can call themselves a Christian and not know about or believe in Christ or what Christ even means. Again, how would we even know this apart from the Bible (with the exception of tradition passed down)?

What does a faith without the Bible mean to you? You believe in God, but is it really the "Christian God"? How do you know that apart from the Bible? How is it not the "Islamic God" or some "Hindu God" that you actually believe in since ancient tradition/writing does not tell you what God you worship? Is it merely that you worship the God of creation as you know it? I certainly don't condemn that, I just don't understand what causes you to call yourself "Christian".

Peter Kirby

No, Riverwind. I had a revelation. I am not a Christian. God is okay with that.

Riverwind

Hmm...Ok. I thought I read on your new blog that you considered yourself a Christian now, and you talk your Christian beliefs. Are you being sarcastic here? Sorry if my posts are coming across poorly. I mean them genuinely. I'm not asking my questions to irritate or intimidate. Your belief is different from mine and I don't understand it, so I am making an effort to do so.

Peter Kirby

Nope, no sarcasm. I am not a Christian. God is okay with that.