Landlord Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 The people that don't know what is in the Bible, don't live by it and etc. probably aren't Christians. Can you say that, though? There were a LOT of Christians circa 100 AD. None of them had read the Bible. Today you're told that you MUST read and know and believe in the Bible 100% or... else. Whatever the "or" is in your sect. For ~300~ years there was no Bible. That's about 15% of the total time frame of Christianity. What did those early Christians do without a Bible? Were they not Christians? It's problematic to define a Christian as someone who knows and lives by the Bible. I'm not trying to make knowing the Bible the definition of a Christian (I posted earlier on what that was), but remarking that if you are in fact a Christian, you have a new heart and will bear good fruit, not because you must or have to, but because you want and desire to. In the hundreds of years after Jesus' death, people didn't have the New Testament books, but they were receiving letters, hosting missionaries, gathering and having church, being in community and fellowship together, etc., and if they would have had the scripture available to them they would have desired to read and know it; they just bore fruit in a different way. In the contextualization of today's society, with ample free resources, if you've been regenerated via the Holy Spirit your new deepest desires are God's desires, and thus you will desire to know your God and know His word. 1 Link to comment
epocSoN Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 How do you "look' jewish? It's a religion... not a race? I hate when people say that. Can i look athiest somehow? Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 In the hundreds of years after Jesus' death, people didn't have the New Testament books, but they were receiving letters, hosting missionaries, gathering and having church, being in community and fellowship together, etc., Isn't that a bizarre definition of Christian by today's standards? Imagine if you tried to get dyed-in-the-wool modern American Right-Wing Christians to live like that. It would be a disaster. I think the conversation that you and I are having lends itself to a discussion of the organic nature of belief; or, in the concept that Theism must adapt. Christianity is not what it once was. Neither is Islam, Buddhism, or any of the other long-term religions. In an inelastic faith, that's an interesting thing. Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 How do you "look' jewish? It's a religion... not a race? I hate when people say that. Can i look athiest somehow? I've always thought you looked like a Husker. Link to comment
NEWICOsker Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Technically the definition of Christian is one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. Sometimes also called Christ followers. Only God Himself can judge the heart. 1 Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Actually Christ would look Jewish .. Heh... Sammy Davis Jr. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Can you say that, though? There were a LOT of Christians circa 100 AD. None of them had read the Bible. Today you're told that you MUST read and know and believe in the Bible 100% or... else. Whatever the "or" is in your sect. For ~300~ years there was no Bible. That's about 15% of the total time frame of Christianity. What did those early Christians do without a Bible? Were they not Christians? It's problematic to define a Christian as someone who knows and lives by the Bible. The first Bible (Vulgate) was put together at about the year 400 CE by Saint Jerome. But most of the the collection of books he used had been around since the first century, they were available to followers at that time. In addition... Saint Jerome had pretty much copied the collection of books that Saint Melito had put together some time mid second century. Link to comment
Husker_x Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Can you say that, though? There were a LOT of Christians circa 100 AD. None of them had read the Bible. Today you're told that you MUST read and know and believe in the Bible 100% or... else. Whatever the "or" is in your sect. For ~300~ years there was no Bible. That's about 15% of the total time frame of Christianity. What did those early Christians do without a Bible? Were they not Christians? It's problematic to define a Christian as someone who knows and lives by the Bible. The first Bible (Vulgate) was put together at about the year 400 CE by Saint Jerome. But most of the the collection of books he used had been around since the first century, they were available to followers at that time. In addition... Saint Jerome had pretty much copied the collection of books that Saint Melito had put together some time mid second century. The Latin Vulgate was not the first canon. Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Can you say that, though? There were a LOT of Christians circa 100 AD. None of them had read the Bible. Today you're told that you MUST read and know and believe in the Bible 100% or... else. Whatever the "or" is in your sect. For ~300~ years there was no Bible. That's about 15% of the total time frame of Christianity. What did those early Christians do without a Bible? Were they not Christians? It's problematic to define a Christian as someone who knows and lives by the Bible. The first Bible (Vulgate) was put together at about the year 400 CE by Saint Jerome. But most of the the collection of books he used had been around since the first century, they were available to followers at that time. In addition... Saint Jerome had pretty much copied the collection of books that Saint Melito had put together some time mid second century. The Latin Vulgate was not the first canon. Exactly. Constantine would be offended that all his dedication and work were for naught if he heard this. Further, the Latin Vulgate Bible wasn't even totally completely official until the 1500s. It took more than a millennia for the Church to agree on ONE Bible. And that's not even mentioning Luther's Bible, from around the same period as the Council of Trent "official" Bible. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 The Latin Vulgate was not the first canon. Yes, there were many "Jesus cults" that sprung up after His death, and each of these groups had their own collection of books they regarded as canon. However no of those had near universal acceptance. Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Yes, there were many "Jesus cults" that sprung up after His death, and each of these groups had their own collection of books they regarded as canon. However no of those had near universal acceptance. That raises the question of whether human acceptance means it is "right." And from that, do humans create religion? That answer creates more problems than it solves. 1 Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Constantine would be offended that all his dedication and work were for naught if he heard this Unfortunately for Constantine, he died before the pope sanctioned a "bible" of canon written in Latin. However Jerome was not an original thinker, and had put his collection together with the help of many others including Augustine. He also put an emphasis to include all the books he had already translated into Latin. Further, the Latin Vulgate Bible wasn't even totally completely official until the 1500s. It took more than a millennia for the Church to agree on ONE Bible. The various denominations can't agree on which books should be included to this day. And no Bible is complete without the Book of Tobit! Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 That raises the question of whether human acceptance means it is "right." And from that, do humans create religion? That answer creates more problems than it solves. Per Roman Catholicism the Pope is Jesus' representative here on earth and can speak for Him in spiritual matters. So if a pope sanctioned Saint Jerome to create 200 copies of the first Bible... it most be so! But I agree with you, that religion is man-made. Link to comment
knapplc Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 That raises the question of whether human acceptance means it is "right." And from that, do humans create religion? That answer creates more problems than it solves. Per Roman Catholicism the Pope is Jesus' representative here on earth and can speak for Him in spiritual matters. I was raised Lutheran. That Pope is just a dude to me. Link to comment
Landlord Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 That raises the question of whether human acceptance means it is "right." And from that, do humans create religion? That answer creates more problems than it solves. Per Roman Catholicism the Pope is Jesus' representative here on earth and can speak for Him in spiritual matters. So if a pope sanctioned Saint Jerome to create 200 copies of the first Bible... it most be so! But I agree with you, that religion is man-made. This is wrong. That is all. Link to comment
Recommended Posts