Discussion on TD&D guidelines

Feedback and site usage questions

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
r~
Sage
Posts: 599
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Purpose of this subforum

Post #1

Post by r~ »

Please change (or remove) the statement “that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority.”

It is clearly within the realm of Christian Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma to debate which Words of the Bible carry the authority of the Holy Spirit and which ones do not. This statement encourages the teachers of the laws that kill at the expense of the ministers of the new covenant.

I would expect a Christian site to do the opposite.

Peace
ItS
r~

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Re: Purpose of this subforum

Post #2

Post by Shermana »

r~ wrote:Please change (or remove) the statement �that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority.�

It is clearly within the realm of Christian Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma to debate which Words of the Bible carry the authority of the Holy Spirit and which ones do not. This statement encourages the teachers of the laws that kill at the expense of the ministers of the new covenant.

I would expect a Christian site to do the opposite.

Peace
ItS
r~
Laws that kill? Yeah prevention of pork eating kills. Obeying Sabbath kills. The Law kills if you break it.

Now are the Pastoral Epistles assumed to be authentic in this forum (along with the other in-question epistles like Ephesians and Colossians) or is discussing how 90% of scholars call them Pseudipipgraha written circa 110-150 A.D. a subject for Apologetics?

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #3

Post by fewwillfindit »

Shermana wrote:Now are the Pastoral Epistles assumed to be authentic in this forum?
Of course they are. The day they are allowed to be called pseudepigraphical in this subforum will be a sad day indeed. If you want to question the authority or authorship of the pastoral epistles, you can do so in Christianity and Apologetics. The entire point (as I see it) of this subforum is to provide a refuge for those who believe the entire Bible to be true to debate matters of Theology. Otherwise this subforum loses its reason for existing.

Of course, the decision is Oliver's, not mine, but I wanted to give my two cents.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #4

Post by Shermana »

fewwillfindit wrote:
Shermana wrote:Now are the Pastoral Epistles assumed to be authentic in this forum?
Of course they are. The day they are allowed to be called pseudepigraphical in this subforum will be a sad day indeed. If you want to question the authority or authorship of the pastoral epistles, you can do so in Christianity and Apologetics. The entire point (as I see it) of this subforum is to provide a refuge for those who believe the entire Bible to be true to debate matters of Theology. Otherwise this subforum loses its reason for existing.

Of course, the decision is Oliver's, not mine, but I wanted to give my two cents.
So then can we assume the Apocrypha are unquestionably valid too? After all, every single Bible had them for 1400 years or so and its official Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, they include 3 and 4 Maccabees too. My Revised Standard has them.

Also the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible has Enoch too, since Jude 1:14 quotes Enoch 1:9 also, I assume I can discuss Enoch unquestionably then?

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #5

Post by fewwillfindit »

Shermana wrote:
fewwillfindit wrote:
Shermana wrote:Now are the Pastoral Epistles assumed to be authentic in this forum?
Of course they are. The day they are allowed to be called pseudepigraphical in this subforum will be a sad day indeed. If you want to question the authority or authorship of the pastoral epistles, you can do so in Christianity and Apologetics. The entire point (as I see it) of this subforum is to provide a refuge for those who believe the entire Bible to be true to debate matters of Theology. Otherwise this subforum loses its reason for existing.

Of course, the decision is Oliver's, not mine, but I wanted to give my two cents.
So then can we assume the Apocrypha are unquestionably valid too? After all, every single Bible had them for 1400 years or so and its official Catholic and Orthodox doctrine, they include 3 and 4 Maccabees too. My Revised Standard has them.

Also the Ethiopian Orthodox Bible has Enoch too, since Jude 1:14 quotes Enoch 1:9 also, I assume I can discuss Enoch unquestionably then?
Nope: Subforum Rules
In this subforum, the Bible (the 66 canonical books of the Bible) is considered an authoritative source. Challenges to the authority of the Bible are not allowed here.
The way I read it, you can use them as an historical reference, but they are not authoritative to determine theology. But again, we'll have to wait for Otseng to weigh in. He da bossman. :D
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #6

Post by Shermana »

Well if that's the case it would be more honest to say the "Protestant version" of the Bible because The Apocrypha were considered Canon by the Council of Trent, and Catholics represent a significant share of Christiandom. As do Orthodox.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18064
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 102 times
Been thanked: 154 times
Contact:

Post #7

Post by otseng »

fewwillfindit wrote: Nope: Subforum Rules
In this subforum, the Bible (the 66 canonical books of the Bible) is considered an authoritative source. Challenges to the authority of the Bible are not allowed here.
The way I read it, you can use them as an historical reference, but they are not authoritative to determine theology. But again, we'll have to wait for Otseng to weigh in. He da bossman. :D
That is correct, the apocryphal books are not considered authoritative in TDD. They may be presented as evidence, but it doesn't carry any more weight than secular sources.

Chase200mph
Banned
Banned
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:08 pm
Location: Near Pullman Wa.

Post #8

Post by Chase200mph »

otseng wrote:
fewwillfindit wrote: Nope: Subforum Rules
In this subforum, the Bible (the 66 canonical books of the Bible) is considered an authoritative source. Challenges to the authority of the Bible are not allowed here.
The way I read it, you can use them as an historical reference, but they are not authoritative to determine theology. But again, we'll have to wait for Otseng to weigh in. He da bossman. :D
That is correct, the apocryphal books are not considered authoritative in TDD. They may be presented as evidence, but it doesn't carry any more weight than secular sources.
Noted secular sources disavow everything historical in the bible….so what is left to debate?

Shermana
Prodigy
Posts: 3762
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 10:19 pm
Location: City of the "Angels"

Post #9

Post by Shermana »

Chase200mph wrote:
otseng wrote:
fewwillfindit wrote: Nope: Subforum Rules
In this subforum, the Bible (the 66 canonical books of the Bible) is considered an authoritative source. Challenges to the authority of the Bible are not allowed here.
The way I read it, you can use them as an historical reference, but they are not authoritative to determine theology. But again, we'll have to wait for Otseng to weigh in. He da bossman. :D
That is correct, the apocryphal books are not considered authoritative in TDD. They may be presented as evidence, but it doesn't carry any more weight than secular sources.
Noted secular sources disavow everything historical in the bible….so what is left to debate?
You can debate the specifics and details of these "noted secular sources" claims (assuming you weren't just going to wield their word alone as an appeal to authority) on the Apologetics board.

Chase200mph
Banned
Banned
Posts: 327
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2011 4:08 pm
Location: Near Pullman Wa.

Post #10

Post by Chase200mph »

Shermana wrote:
Chase200mph wrote:
otseng wrote:
fewwillfindit wrote: Nope: Subforum Rules
In this subforum, the Bible (the 66 canonical books of the Bible) is considered an authoritative source. Challenges to the authority of the Bible are not allowed here.
The way I read it, you can use them as an historical reference, but they are not authoritative to determine theology. But again, we'll have to wait for Otseng to weigh in. He da bossman. :D
That is correct, the apocryphal books are not considered authoritative in TDD. They may be presented as evidence, but it doesn't carry any more weight than secular sources.
Noted secular sources disavow everything historical in the bible….so what is left to debate?
You can debate the specifics and details of these "noted secular sources" claims (assuming you weren't just going to wield their word alone as an appeal to authority) on the Apologetics board.
I believe the point I was making was there can be no debate without evidence, and no evidence exists because there is no one bible, and no evidence supports any of the bibles which therefore makes all subjective doctrine and not made up of any formal perspective of logic which keeps it from becoming a debate in the first place. I think that is the biggest run on sentence I’ve ever written… :sweat:

Like you said, a discussion only, because it cannot be anything more than a compare and contrast of doctrine… : )

Post Reply