Discussion on TD&D guidelines

[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~

[William]

Overcomer wrote:
But the word "authoritative" is defined as "able to be trusted as being accurate or true".

To which William replied:

Which is all that it means. This does not mean that one cannot critique it. After all, that is what Christians are doing when they argue interpretations. They are not trusting the bible, but rather, they are trusting their particular interpretations of the bible and it is the interpretations which are being treated as authoritative and thus trusted as being accurate or true.

I understand what you're saying, but when Christians discuss the meaning of Scripture and refer to scholarship on the matter, they aren't suggesting that the Bible is not the Word of God. Nor are they questioning its authority. Their goal is to understand it better and, while doing so, remain respectful of it and its source, that is, God.

And I see a difference between "critique" (examining something critically which is what Christians have been doing for centuries) and "criticize" (attack, denounce, malign, deprecate, trash, belittle -- take your pick of these synonyms).

Are you seriously trying to say that when Christians have been critiquing [for centuries] they are not themselves attacking, denouncing, maligning, deprecating, trashing, belittling?

When you call the Bible nothing but mythology, you are denouncing it, something that you are free to do in the Apologetic Forum. So there is a place here for talking about Scripture as mythology. It just isn't the Theology and Doctrine Forum.

I see. You are of the opinion that referring to something as mythology is related to "attacking, denouncing, maligning, deprecating, trashing, belittling".
That is not the case. Referring to stories in the bible as mythology is truthful expression of actual facts. I have never referred to the overall book itself as mythology - just stories within it which clearly cannot be said to be 'true' any more than analogies can be said to be true.

Mythology is 1.
a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
"tales from Greek mythology"
Similar:
myth(s)
legend(s)
folklore
folk tales
folk stories
lore
tradition
stories
tales
mythos
2.
the study of myths.
"this field includes archaeology, comparative mythology, and folklore"

[otseng]

[Replying to William in post #22]

I like JRR Tolkien's take on it...

"the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths."
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/201 ... true-myth/

[William]

[Replying to William in post #22]

I like JRR Tolkien's take on it...

"the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths."
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/201 ... true-myth/

Did Tolkien explain why he thought the myth was true and really did happen, re Christ?

[otseng]

[Replying to William in post #24]

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=38330

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to William in post #22]

I like JRR Tolkien's take on it...

"the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God’s myth where the others are men’s myths."
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/201 ... true-myth/

The Bible is a collection of stories, and as stories with morals, it hardly matters whether they're true or not. If they provide good morals, it wouldn't matter that they were fictional. Likewise, if they provide horrid morals, if they happened to be true it would hardly make that situation any better.

As far as the stories go, what they say happened is the canon. If people can have these sorts of hypothetical discussions about Star Trek, and can't suspend their disbelief when it's the Bible, that's an indication of some sort of permeating bias, which, if held, is more than enough to discredit the arguments of someone arguing against theology.

This is a piece on whether First Contact reset the timeline.

I'll give you the answer right now: There is none, because it's fiction and the writers simply aren't that smart. They don't think about this stuff. But if you do, that makes it your canon, and you're free to suspend your disbelief and have the discussion, looking for evidence to support either position. And if you're suspending your disbelief, if you find hard evidence (in other words, a contradiction otherwise) then you're right whether the writers intended it or not, because what they wrote down became the canon of that universe.

TL;DR - There's no point discussing the canon of a particular universe if you're going to ignore the lore of that universe, and just tell the people wanting to have the discussion that it's fictional so there is no answer.

[William]

[Replying to Overcomer in post #20]

I understand what you're saying, but when Christians discuss the meaning of Scripture and refer to scholarship on the matter, they aren't suggesting that the Bible is not the Word of God. Nor are they questioning its authority. Their goal is to understand it better and, while doing so, remain respectful of it and its source, that is, God.

In this subforum the canon of the Bible is considered authoritative with respect to the historical consensus of the canon's content.

While many Christians do indeed believe that the bible is the word of God - the canons content does not go so far as to make that claim. It is purely an invention of most Christian beliefs, to make that claim, perhaps even to give the bible that type of air of authority , but the practice of critiquing any biblical script is not nullified because the one critiquing does not happen to believe the cannon is 'the word of god'.
When I critique the bible stories, I assume [for the sake of argument] that they are true and then find the holes in said stories which make them appear to be fabricated.

[Revelations won]

Discussion on TD&D guidelines

After reviewing that which is presented on this topic it is amazing that from one source , the Bible we now have over 38000 different sects which obviously are not in harmony with each other.

Perhaps we should consider the history from the beginning on how and by what means we have developed the current sacred record which did not exist as the Bible which was only organized in it’s first form about 325 AD.

We would not have this record in the first place without “Revelation from a divine source”.

It clearly was not given by philosophy or private interpretations as the scripture states:

2 Peter :
15
Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance.
16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18
And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

First, Peter makes it very clear that It was only by direct revelation that the three witnesses (Peter, James and John) knew by personal revelation these powerful things relating to the son as testified by God the Father.

Second, Peter clearly testifies:

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

I would ask: wherein have these obvious gifts of the spirit been denied to others from that day to the present?


Third, Peter makes it very clear that:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Does this obvious lack of unity result from more than 38000 different “private interpretations” of the same record?

Fourth we find in verse 21 the clear reason how revelation came and by what source.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Is it an understatement to declare that the scriptures and prophesies
Given by revelation can only be clearly interpreted by that same power?

Is it not obvious today that we by lack of faith and unbelief are not living up to our potential to give clear and unified interpretation of the holy scriptures, for these precious unifying revelatory gifts of the holy Ghost are still available to us today?