Figuring Out Religion

[Greg]

This may be of interest to some, even those who are not searching for a church home but are interested in learning a bit more, or perhaps to examine 'why the Christian God?'.  The first chapter in the book discusses the importance of the Reformation - 500 years ago this year.  The first chapter also presents an overview of various Christian traditions much better than I have in multiple pages of my mind dump.  The Chapter is written by John Warwick Montgomery, a renowned Christain apologetics scholar. 

More on Montgomery:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Warwick_Montgomery

The first Chapter:
https://www.dropbox.com/home/ScannerPro ... +Veith.pdf

Also included is the table of contents.  If anyone has interest in some particular book chapter, let me know on a post or PM and I'll post it.

... Mountaineer

I was reading up on Constantine the Great and how he (the Roman Emperor), laid out the foundation for taking on some of the early Christian church ideas and pulling in some pagan stuff as well to fully unite everyone under one Roman Catholic religion. This seems to be where the religion took a turn of the early Christian stuff versus the Catholic Church being created and that the Crusades/Inquisition were in the name of Catholicism, not early Christianity (i.e. two separate pieces).

[Mountaineer]

This is a letter from Matthew Harrison, President of the LCMS, on the SCOTUS ruling.  It should prove "interesting" over the coming years to see how all this plays out.

... Mountaineer

http://blogs.lcms.org/2015/synod-presid ... age-ruling

God is our refuge and strength,
  a very present help in trouble.
Therefore we will not fear though the earth gives way,
  though the mountains be moved into the heart of the sea,
though its waters roar and foam,
  though the mountains tremble at its swelling. Selah

There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God,
  the holy habitation of the Most High.
God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved;
  God will help her when morning dawns.
The nations rage, the kingdoms totter;
  he utters his voice, the earth melts.
The LORD of hosts is with us;
  the God of Jacob is our fortress (Psalm 46:1–7).

A one-person majority of the U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong – again. Some 40 years ago, a similarly activist court legalized the killing of children in the womb. That decision has to date left a wake of some 55 million Americans dead. Today, the Court has imposed same-sex marriage upon the whole nation in a similar fashion. Five justices cannot determine natural or divine law. Now shall come the time of testing for Christians faithful to the Scriptures and the divine institution of marriage (Matthew 19:3–6), and indeed, a time of testing much more intense than what followed Roe v. Wade.

Like Roe v. Wade, this decision will be followed by a rash of lawsuits. Through coercive litigation, governments and popular culture continue to make the central post-modern value of sexual freedom override “the free exercise of religion” enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

The ramifications of this decision are seismic. Proponents will seek to drive Christians and Christian institutions out of education at all levels; they will press laws to force faithful Christian institutions and individuals to violate consciences in work practices and myriad other ways. We will have much more to say about this.

During some of the darkest days of Germany, a faithful Lutheran presciently described how governments lose their claim to legitimate authority according to Romans 13.

The Caesar cult in its manifold forms, the deification of the state, is one great form of the defection from the [true] idea of the state. There are also other possibilities of such defection. The government can forget and neglect its tasks. When it no longer distinguishes between right and wrong, when its courts are no longer governed by the strict desire for justice, but by special interests, when government no longer has the courage to exercise its law, fails to exercise its duties, undermines its own legal order, when it weakens through its family law parental authority and the estate of marriage, then it ceases to be governing authority.

Raising such a question can lead to heavy conflicts of conscience. But it is fundamentally conceivable, and it has time and again become reality in history, that a governing authority has ceased to be governing authority. In such a case there may indeed exist a submission to a superior power. But the duty of obedience against this power no longer exists. [Hermann Sasse, “What Is the State?”(1932)]

As faithful Christians, we shall continue to be obedient to just laws. We affirm the human rights of all individuals and the inherent and equal value of all people. We respect the divinely given dignity of all people, no matter their sexual preference. We recognize that, under the exacting and demanding laws of God, we are indeed sinners in thought, word and deed, just as are all (Romans 3:9ff.). We confess that the “blood of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, cleanses us from all our sins” (1 John 1:7). We confess that God’s divine law of marriage and the entire Ten Commandments apply to all, and that so also the life-giving sacrifice of Christ on the cross is for all. It is a “righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (Romans 3:22).

However, even as we struggle as a church to come to a unified response to this blatant rejection of the entire history of humankind and its practice of marriage, “We shall obey God rather than man” (Acts 5:29). Christians will now begin to learn what it means to be in a state of solemn conscientious objection against the state. We will resist its imposition of falsehood upon us, even as we continue to reach out to those who continue to be harmed by the ethic of radical sexual freedom, detached from God’s blessing of marriage. And we will stand shoulder to shoulder with Christians, churches and people of good will who are resolute on this issue.

God help us. Amen.

Pastor Matthew C. Harrison

[screwtape]

Some more thoughts from my continuing deconstruction of the Bible....

on antisemitism in the New Testament.....

As a believer I sometimes heard the charge that the New Testament was antisemitic but being required to hold that the New Testament is a divine revelation I obviously had to pay no attention because that would make it a human book. After all, how could God be antisemitic, especially since the Jews were his chosen people (even though it is obvious from the Old Testament that he has no problem assigning collective guilt to a whole race of people to the point of having them all exterminated)?

No longer having that constraint I can see that the charge is obviously true. You can see it in every one of the gospels and especially in the one believed to be the last written, i.e., the gospel of John, where he often uses "the Jews" in a pejorative way. You have Pilate washing his hands after desiring to turn Jesus loose but a rabid crowd of Jews asking for a murderer to be released instead. In Matthew 27:25 we have this:  All the people answered, "His blood is on us and on our children!" (The exclamation point was there where I copied the verse from but I don't know if it was in the original Greek or not). The charge continues in the book of Acts with the very first sermons of the new church charging all of Israel with the crucifixion of Christ. The Apostle Paul continues the theme having many troubles being persecuted by "The Jews".

And the charge continues to this day. I remember often hearing that the reason the Romans came and destroyed the city of Jerusalem and tore down the temple in 70 AD was because they rejected the Messiah that God had sent them. (My guess is that only a small percentage of the people even heard of Jesus at the time but that's a debate for another time).

But apart from the historical fact of antisemitism in the New Testament, there is a theological point to consider. If Jesus was the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" then why should the Jews be held guilty for crucifying him?  Were the priests who slaughtered the lambs for sacrifice in the temple held guilty of shedding blood or were they just doing the will of God and therefore guiltless? It was God who demanded the bloody sacrifice so why not blame it on him?

[screwtape]

Sermon for the day. From  pastor Robert Price in "The Reason Driven Live":

Once I attended a fan convention and was prowling through the colorful bazaar called the Dealer's Room. I
was on the lookout for interesting old science fiction paperbacks, monster movie videos, and whatnot. Some
people at these events just cannot seem to resist the impulse to show up in costume. All of a sudden I spotted
a guy dressed as Jesus. So I could not resist the impulse to accost him with a smart remark. I walked up to
him and asked him, "Excuse me, but have you accepted yourself as your personal savior?" I don't even
remember what he answered, because it suddenly hit me: that is the crucial question everyone must face:
HAVE you accepted yourself as your personal savior? Because that's the only savior who can do the job. YOU
are your personal savior, without whose aid you will never get anywhere. Unless this savior intervenes on your
behalf, nothing anyone has done to help you will do any good. You are going to have to decide to heed the
advice some wise man gave you. You are going to have to decide the time has come for to make an
about-face. It is you, not me, nor anybody else, not even Rick Warren nor Jesus Christ, who can discover
the meaning of your life. Only you can answer the question why you are not doing what you know you must
do. Only you, not your church or some other peer group, can save you. That is the cross you must bear:
free decision and responsibility for the results.

[MachineGhost]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/51 ... e-in-space

[Mountaineer]

Sermon for the day. From  pastor Robert Price in "The Reason Driven Live":

Once I attended a fan convention and was prowling through the colorful bazaar called the Dealer's Room. I
was on the lookout for interesting old science fiction paperbacks, monster movie videos, and whatnot. Some
people at these events just cannot seem to resist the impulse to show up in costume. All of a sudden I spotted
a guy dressed as Jesus. So I could not resist the impulse to accost him with a smart remark. I walked up to
him and asked him, "Excuse me, but have you accepted yourself as your personal savior?" I don't even
remember what he answered, because it suddenly hit me: that is the crucial question everyone must face:
HAVE you accepted yourself as your personal savior? Because that's the only savior who can do the job. YOU
are your personal savior, without whose aid you will never get anywhere. Unless this savior intervenes on your
behalf, nothing anyone has done to help you will do any good. You are going to have to decide to heed the
advice some wise man gave you. You are going to have to decide the time has come for to make an
about-face. It is you, not me, nor anybody else, not even Rick Warren nor Jesus Christ, who can discover
the meaning of your life. Only you can answer the question why you are not doing what you know you must
do. Only you, not your church or some other peer group, can save you. That is the cross you must bear:
free decision and responsibility for the results.

That is an entertaining story and one certainly popular in America's self-reliant, I can do it myself, culture.  I would say that Pastor Price has conflated objective and subjective justification though.  Objective justification is what Jesus did on the cross for EVERYONE, FROM ALL TIME to be saved, forgiveness of ALL sin.  Subjective justification is, you have to believe that Jesus indeed did that and will fulfill his promises to save you, personally --- his track record on promises so far is 100% so I'll believe him, you may not.  The new creation has begun by the Holy Spirit working within us to know Jesus.  I am excited when I think of how good it is going to be after the Last Day for me.

An interesting question to ask Pastor Price would be, What did Paul mean in his Epistles, e.g. Ephesians 2, when he said we are DEAD in our sin?  How does a DEAD person "decide" to do anything?

2 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.


... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Some more thoughts from my continuing deconstruction of the Bible....

on antisemitism in the New Testament.....

As a believer I sometimes heard the charge that the New Testament was antisemitic but being required to hold that the New Testament is a divine revelation I obviously had to pay no attention because that would make it a human book. After all, how could God be antisemitic, especially since the Jews were his chosen people (even though it is obvious from the Old Testament that he has no problem assigning collective guilt to a whole race of people to the point of having them all exterminated)?

No longer having that constraint I can see that the charge is obviously true. You can see it in every one of the gospels and especially in the one believed to be the last written, i.e., the gospel of John, where he often uses "the Jews" in a pejorative way. You have Pilate washing his hands after desiring to turn Jesus loose but a rabid crowd of Jews asking for a murderer to be released instead. In Matthew 27:25 we have this:  All the people answered, "His blood is on us and on our children!" (The exclamation point was there where I copied the verse from but I don't know if it was in the original Greek or not). The charge continues in the book of Acts with the very first sermons of the new church charging all of Israel with the crucifixion of Christ. The Apostle Paul continues the theme having many troubles being persecuted by "The Jews".

And the charge continues to this day. I remember often hearing that the reason the Romans came and destroyed the city of Jerusalem and tore down the temple in 70 AD was because they rejected the Messiah that God had sent them. (My guess is that only a small percentage of the people even heard of Jesus at the time but that's a debate for another time).

But apart from the historical fact of antisemitism in the New Testament, there is a theological point to consider. If Jesus was the "Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" then why should the Jews be held guilty for crucifying him?  Were the priests who slaughtered the lambs for sacrifice in the temple held guilty of shedding blood or were they just doing the will of God and therefore guiltless? It was God who demanded the bloody sacrifice so why not blame it on him?

Good question, and somewhat common.  But why do "you" want to hold anyone guilty, or blame anyone (other than the fact we humans by nature reject God)?  That is a man-centered question coming from what makes "logical sense" to us with our natural vindictive nature.  Why do "you" want to assume God's role in trying to understand God things that are beyond all understanding?  If Christ had not given himself to die for our sins on the cross and did not do the will of the Father in fulfilling God's plan to restore his creation to the way it was when he created it in the beginning, where do you think we would be today?  I think we would still be back in the First Testament (figuratively) that pointed to the coming of Christ; the good news would not be here.  Thanks be to Jesus that he said "thy will be done".  Christ HAD to die to take our sin to the grave and initiate the new creation.  That is good news Dude, get over the blame game and don't do guilt. 

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/51 ... e-in-space

http://www.kurzweilai.net/critique-of-a ... uter-space

I didn't realize it was from 2014.  Nothing else since then?

[screwtape]

An interesting question to ask Pastor Price would be, What did Paul mean in his Epistles, e.g. Ephesians 2, when he said we are DEAD in our sin?  How does a DEAD person "decide" to do anything?

If you are asserting that a person is unable to do the things Mr. Price says they can, heed the advice of wise men, decide to make changes in their lives, find meaning, and do things they know they should do because they are "DEAD in trespasses and sins" then I don't agree with that. People do those things all the time despite without accepting Jesus as their savior whether your theology says they can or not.

[Mountaineer]

An interesting question to ask Pastor Price would be, What did Paul mean in his Epistles, e.g. Ephesians 2, when he said we are DEAD in our sin?  How does a DEAD person "decide" to do anything?

If you are asserting that a person is unable to do the things Mr. Price says they can, heed the advice of wise men, decide to make changes in their lives, find meaning, and do things they know they should do because they are "DEAD in trespasses and sins" then I don't agree with that. People do those things all the time despite without accepting Jesus as their savior whether your theology says they can or not.

You are once again, and I can totally understand why since you have apparently not familarized yourself with Lutheran theology, conflating the two kingdoms.  Kingdom of the right concerns Christ, salvation, justification, forgiveness of sin, and the like.  The kingdom of the left concerns the civil realm, governments, beauracacy, our responsibilities according to the laws of those in charge of this world; we are responsible for our actions and pay for the consequences of violation to the civil authorities, and also concerns sanctification - how we love our neighbor by doing good works for him.  God is in charge of both kingdoms.  Which kingdom do you think Paul's remarks in Ephesians is concerning when he says you are DEAD in your sin?  In the civil realm, if I have a heart attack on the operating table and die, can I "decide" to revive myself?  Or, would the surgeon have to revive me by some method external to my thoughts and external to my body?

... Mountaineer

Edit:  I made a mistake in the original post by putting sanctification in the kingdom of the right - it is a kingdom of the left topic.  I corrected the above to reflect that. 

[screwtape]

You are once again, and I can totally understand why since you have apparently not familarized yourself with Lutheran theology, conflating the two kingdoms.  Kingdom of the right concerns Christ, salvation, justification, sanctification and the like.  The kingdom of the left concerns the civil realm, governments, beauracacy, our responsibilities according to the laws of those in charge of this world; we are responsible for our actions and pay for the consequences of violation to the civil authorities.  God is in charge of both kingdoms.  Which kingdom do you think Paul's remarks in Ephesians is concerning when he says you are DEAD in your sin?  In the civil realm, if I have a heart attack on the operating table and die, can I "decide" to revive myself?  Or, would the surgeon have to revive me by some method external to my thoughts and external to my body?

... Mountaineer

If you are saying that a person can't receive salvation, justification, and sanctification apart from Christ, Mr. Price and I believe those things are nothing more than figments of the religious imagination so that would be where we seem differ.

[Mountaineer]

You are once again, and I can totally understand why since you have apparently not familarized yourself with Lutheran theology, conflating the two kingdoms.  Kingdom of the right concerns Christ, salvation, justification, sanctification and the like.  The kingdom of the left concerns the civil realm, governments, beauracacy, our responsibilities according to the laws of those in charge of this world; we are responsible for our actions and pay for the consequences of violation to the civil authorities.  God is in charge of both kingdoms.  Which kingdom do you think Paul's remarks in Ephesians is concerning when he says you are DEAD in your sin?  In the civil realm, if I have a heart attack on the operating table and die, can I "decide" to revive myself?  Or, would the surgeon have to revive me by some method external to my thoughts and external to my body?

... Mountaineer

If you are saying that a person can't receive salvation, justification, and sanctification apart from Christ, Mr. Price and I believe those things are nothing more than figments of the religious imagination so that would be where we seem differ.

That is what Scripture says.  If you choose to believe Price instead of Scripture, so be it.  My very best wishes for depending on man instead of God, but that has not turned out too well in the past, according to Scipture. 

... Mountaineer

[MediumTex]

You are once again, and I can totally understand why since you have apparently not familarized yourself with Lutheran theology, conflating the two kingdoms.  Kingdom of the right concerns Christ, salvation, justification, sanctification and the like.  The kingdom of the left concerns the civil realm, governments, beauracacy, our responsibilities according to the laws of those in charge of this world; we are responsible for our actions and pay for the consequences of violation to the civil authorities.  God is in charge of both kingdoms.  Which kingdom do you think Paul's remarks in Ephesians is concerning when he says you are DEAD in your sin?  In the civil realm, if I have a heart attack on the operating table and die, can I "decide" to revive myself?  Or, would the surgeon have to revive me by some method external to my thoughts and external to my body?

... Mountaineer

If you are saying that a person can't receive salvation, justification, and sanctification apart from Christ, Mr. Price and I believe those things are nothing more than figments of the religious imagination so that would be where we seem differ.

That is what Scripture says.  If you choose to believe Price instead of Scripture, so be it.  My very best wishes for depending on man instead of God, but that has not turned out too well in the past, according to Scipture. 

... Mountaineer

But what do you say to the person who looks at the history of Christianity and notes that it all came from the pens and tongues of men who SAID that God spoke to them.

How do we know that those men who claimed to have spoken to God actually did?

Isn't relying on their word for your salvation just more "relying on man"?

[Mountaineer]

If you are saying that a person can't receive salvation, justification, and sanctification apart from Christ, Mr. Price and I believe those things are nothing more than figments of the religious imagination so that would be where we seem differ.

That is what Scripture says.  If you choose to believe Price instead of Scripture, so be it.  My very best wishes for depending on man instead of God, but that has not turned out too well in the past, according to Scipture. 

... Mountaineer

But what do you say to the person who looks at the history of Christianity and notes that it all came from the pens and tongues of men who SAID that God spoke to them.

How do we know that those men who claimed to have spoken to God actually did?

Isn't relying on their word for your salvation just more "relying on man"?

I really understand what you are questioning.  I did that too.  But, if you have faith you will come to understand the Scriptures are God's inspired, and many Christians would add inerrant, Word.  The Scriptures are fully God's Word and fully written by man, just like Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.  Faith comes by hearing the Word proclaimed accurately.  Faith comes from receiving the gifts of the Trinitarian God in the Sacraments (Baptism and the Lord's Supper).  Faith comes by the work of the Holy Spirt who reveals Jesus to us.  We receive the Holy Spirit at Baptism.  Faith is strengthened by asking God in prayer to strengthen my faith.  There may be other ways (God only knows), but this is what God has said in his revealed Word.  The good news is that all who believe in God's promises really don't have to worry about all the things that natural (sinfull) man (born in rebellion to God) wants to know.

... Mountaineer

[Maddy]

This might be a good time to pose a question regarding the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.  There does not seem to be much disagreement regarding the historical events that led to the compilation of the particular writings that comprise the book we now call the Bible:  In short, the Roman emperor Constantine, in an effort to create a unified set of doctrines for a state religion, convened a group of men who would comb through the various writings available at the time and decide, presumably by means of a vote, what was "inspired" and what was not.  Undoubtedly the process occurred in a highly-politicized context, and undoubtedly many manuscripts were destroyed, while others were altered.  Given this background, I have to ask why we should attach any special significance to the particular compilation that emerged out of this process, much less conclude that it is God's Word.  Your thoughts?

[MediumTex]

This might be a good time to pose a question regarding the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.  There does not seem to be much disagreement regarding the historical events that led to the compilation of the particular writings that comprise the book we now call the Bible:  In short, the Roman emperor Constantine, in an effort to create a unified set of doctrines for a state religion, convened a group of men who would comb through the various writings available at the time and decide, presumably by means of a vote, what was "inspired" and what was not.  Undoubtedly the process occurred in a highly-politicized context, and undoubtedly many manuscripts were destroyed, while others were altered.  Given this background, I have to ask why we should attach any special significance to the particular compilation that emerged out of this process, much less conclude that it is God's Word.  Your thoughts?

Even if it hadn't been a political process, there would still be the problem of whether the texts they were reviewing were, in fact, divinely inspired, and I don't know how in the world you could tell a divinely inspired text from a non-divinely inspired text.

I suspect that the process of compiling inerrant biblical canons is sort of like the process of making sausage.

***

Welcome to the forum.  Nice to have you here.

[screwtape]

has anyone ever put together an unadulterated or as unadulterated as possible version of the bible? one with a direct translation from original language and all the available texts included?

Young's literal translation is about as close to what you might be looking for as I can think of.

If you're looking for original documents there aren't any available. They only have copies of copies of copies to work from. God inspired men to write the originals but not to save them.

[screwtape]

This might be a good time to pose a question regarding the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.  There does not seem to be much disagreement regarding the historical events that led to the compilation of the particular writings that comprise the book we now call the Bible:  In short, the Roman emperor Constantine, in an effort to create a unified set of doctrines for a state religion, convened a group of men who would comb through the various writings available at the time and decide, presumably by means of a vote, what was "inspired" and what was not.  Undoubtedly the process occurred in a highly-politicized context, and undoubtedly many manuscripts were destroyed, while others were altered.  Given this background, I have to ask why we should attach any special significance to the particular compilation that emerged out of this process, much less conclude that it is God's Word.  Your thoughts?

I don't think that's quite historically accurate. Constantine convened a council to settle some matter of Christology called the Arian controversy which Christians were fighting over (and which remained unsettled) but they didn't formalize the canon of scripture in that council. The earliest known proposed canon of the 27 New Testament books we now have was made by a guy named Athanasius, who was the Bishop of Alexandria, in 367 AD. Disputes continued long after that about some of the Books, especially the Book of Revelation, but the canon wasn't formalized until much later, sometime in the 7th century, I believe.

Some of the books that were excluded but were still in circulation at the time make for interesting reading. One is the Apocalypse of Peter which some preferred to the Book of Revelation. It has vivid descriptions of heaven and hell, supposedly given to St. Peter on a personal tour by Jesus himself. Once they began settling on an inspired canon they ordered all the other books to be destroyed so most of them are lost but every once in a while they find some new ones.

As for the Bible being the inerrant Word of God, I don't know how many of the believers here actually subscribe to that. I know of only one for sure. When I was a believer I believed the Bible was the inspired Word of God but I don't recall ever being asked to sign on to the inerrancy doctrine and don't know if I could have or not. I would have to say that being forced to look into that doctrine is one of the things that ultimately led me into the dark chasm of unbelief where I now find myself hopelessly lost and beyond salvation.

[Mountaineer]

This might be a good time to pose a question regarding the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.  There does not seem to be much disagreement regarding the historical events that led to the compilation of the particular writings that comprise the book we now call the Bible:  In short, the Roman emperor Constantine, in an effort to create a unified set of doctrines for a state religion, convened a group of men who would comb through the various writings available at the time and decide, presumably by means of a vote, what was "inspired" and what was not.  Undoubtedly the process occurred in a highly-politicized context, and undoubtedly many manuscripts were destroyed, while others were altered.  Given this background, I have to ask why we should attach any special significance to the particular compilation that emerged out of this process, much less conclude that it is God's Word.  Your thoughts?

The way the Canon was established over hundreds of years was certainly messy from man's perspective and has been debated endlessly.  Even today, the books selected for inclusion in the Bible vary within the Christian tradition.  One of the better books that goes into great detail on the subject is "The Canon of Scripture" by F. F. Bruce.  I would say, perhaps incompletely, that all the books in the Christian Bible whether in Greek or English or Swahili (e.g. the ESV, NIV, RSV, AV, etc.) contain either the pre-incarnate or the incarnate Jesus (aside from being of the correct time period when written - e.g. no second century or later stuff).  They are either pointing to his coming, or tell of his works while here, or tell of Salvation for believers in him and his promises.

To me the real question, regardless of the messy processes used, is "Do you believe God had his hand in what we ended up with as Scripture, and do you believe he directed the processes used to get there?"  Scripture says it is breathed out by God (for example:  https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV ) but that is circular reasoning if you do not believe in revealed knowledge.  Perhaps the more fundamental question is "Do you believe God is in charge of everything?"  If yes, great.  If not, there is probably not much anyone other than the Holy Spirit working within you can do.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

This might be a good time to pose a question regarding the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.  There does not seem to be much disagreement regarding the historical events that led to the compilation of the particular writings that comprise the book we now call the Bible:  In short, the Roman emperor Constantine, in an effort to create a unified set of doctrines for a state religion, convened a group of men who would comb through the various writings available at the time and decide, presumably by means of a vote, what was "inspired" and what was not.  Undoubtedly the process occurred in a highly-politicized context, and undoubtedly many manuscripts were destroyed, while others were altered.  Given this background, I have to ask why we should attach any special significance to the particular compilation that emerged out of this process, much less conclude that it is God's Word.  Your thoughts?

Even if it hadn't been a political process, there would still be the problem of whether the texts they were reviewing were, in fact, divinely inspired, and I don't know how in the world you could tell a divinely inspired text from a non-divinely inspired text.

I suspect that the process of compiling inerrant biblical canons is sort of like the process of making sausage.

***

Welcome to the forum.  Nice to have you here.

Maddy, welcome to the forum.

To followup on MT's comment, a fascinating, but highly technical book on how to read and understand Scripture is:

What Does This Mean?: Principles of Biblical Interpretation in the Post-Modern World (Concordia Scholarship Today)
by James W. Voelz

In its second edition, this book is a basic hermeneutics textbook for traditional Christians, especially those of the Lutheran tradition. It discusses textual criticism, semantics, pragmatics, and application of biblical texts to postmodern contexts. It considers areas related to language, thought and reality, and more.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

You are once again, and I can totally understand why since you have apparently not familarized yourself with Lutheran theology, conflating the two kingdoms.  Kingdom of the right concerns Christ, salvation, justification, sanctification and the like.  The kingdom of the left concerns the civil realm, governments, beauracacy, our responsibilities according to the laws of those in charge of this world; we are responsible for our actions and pay for the consequences of violation to the civil authorities.  God is in charge of both kingdoms.  Which kingdom do you think Paul's remarks in Ephesians is concerning when he says you are DEAD in your sin?  In the civil realm, if I have a heart attack on the operating table and die, can I "decide" to revive myself?  Or, would the surgeon have to revive me by some method external to my thoughts and external to my body?

... Mountaineer

If you are saying that a person can't receive salvation, justification, and sanctification apart from Christ, Mr. Price and I believe those things are nothing more than figments of the religious imagination so that would be where we seem differ.

That is what Scripture says.  If you choose to believe Price instead of Scripture, so be it.  My very best wishes for depending on man instead of God, but that has not turned out too well in the past, according to Scipture. 

... Mountaineer

There is an interesting podcast of June 27 that discusses whether or not the SCOTUS ruling re. marriage matters.  He presents a case that the problem began decades ago and due to various factors, one of which being Christians not doing their proper family vocation according to the orders of creation.  Sin has distorted that creation in many, many ways.

... Mountaineer

Response to the SCOTUS Decision on Gay Marriage
June 27, 2015 by Jordan Cooper Leave a Comment
On this program I responded the recent Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. I asked the question: does this issue matter? and answer in the affirmative. I discuss how important it is for Christians to defend the orders of creation and give a response to these important issues.

The program - June 27 "Response to the SCOTUS Decision on Gay Marriage.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsin ... -marriage/

[screwtape]

I suspect that the process of compiling inerrant biblical canons is sort of like the process of making sausage.

And you know there's a saying that if you ever saw how they made sausage you would never want to eat it again.

[Mountaineer]

I suspect that the process of compiling inerrant biblical canons is sort of like the process of making sausage.

And you know there's a saying that if you ever saw how they made sausage you would never want to eat it again.

I know that curiousity killed the cat, but since I'm not a feline, I'll go ahead and ask:

Why the madbean --> screwtape change?  Are you a CS Lewis fan?  Why not wormwood; did you wish to be a mentor or go for the authoratative position of senior? 

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

God inspired me to write this post.

[screwtape]

has anyone ever put together an unadulterated or as unadulterated as possible version of the bible? one with a direct translation from original language and all the available texts included?

Young's literal translation is about as close to what you might be looking for as I can think of.

If you're looking for original documents there aren't any available. They only have copies of copies of copies to work from. God inspired men to write the originals but not to save them.

it is the general idea of what i had in mind... but it was done a long time ago in 1862, and it seems to have some controversial use of tortured English grammar being used to mimic Greek grammar, maybe that is unavoidable i am not sure.. i don't know if it included non cannon text, it doesn't seem to, and it also predates the dead sea scrolls and any other modern discovery's of original or more original texts...

I used to read Young's a lot. He translates the tense of verbs literally which often makes it read really funny like “by grace ye are having been saved, through faith". Not sure really what that's trying to say.

Interestingly, it doesn't contain the word Hell.

Maybe you need to learn Greek and Hebrew and take up textual criticism. Always figured I'd leave that to people with more time on their hands  but I did have an interlinear Greek New Testament and Vine's expository dictionary to look up words.

there is a TV preacher i mentioned way, way, way back in this thread that does a lot of that language translation textual interpretation stuff (Pastor Melissa Scott) she is one of very few (the only) TV preacher i have ever been able to watch a whole show all the way through.. i can't really vouch for her interpretations but the knowledge of ancient language and the way she pulls it all together on her whiteboard is both impressive and entertaining in an educational way...