Why you believe what you believe I

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The books that were discarded by the early church fathers were discarded for very good reasons. They had fallacies of various kinds, some of them theological. There was a very careful process that was used before a book was accepted as Biblical. If this were not true, the Bible would have been found invalid as a source book centuries ago.

Honestly, do you really think that the church fathers should have accepted every book that was proposed to them as infallible scripture?

There are two things I want to say about this. First, you said that the scriptures were divinely inspired. Then you admitted that some books were tossed (from the Old Testament as well as the New, by the way). So it stands to reason that the decision to toss a book is divinely inspired as well. In particular, you say theological fallacies were behind the decision. So that means the judgement of what is fallacious in some books was also divinely inspired.

That means I will have to ask God what exactly is fallacious in Thomas. *shrug*

[Nurvingiel]

Where the heck did RÃ*an go?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

There are two things I want to say about this. First, you said that the scriptures were divinely inspired. Then you admitted that some books were tossed (from the Old Testament as well as the New, by the way).

I didn't say all books, or scriptures, if you would call them so, that were presented to the council were divinely inspired. There was no New Testament. They were making the New Testament at that time. The Old Testament was already formed by the Jews long before. The only changes in the Old Testament that Christians did was reforming the starting and stopping places of some of the books, and changing their order. Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, etc. we divided into two books each, while they earlier had each been one. The Jews also considered the Minor Prophets as one book. Those changes are inconsequential, though. They do not have any bearing on the material that was written.

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

So it stands to reason that the decision to toss a book is divinely inspired as well. In particular, you say theological fallacies were behind the decision. So that means the judgement of what is fallacious in some books was also divinely inspired.

They weren't deciding based upon their own thinking entirely! They were operating from church tradition also. The writings they accepted as divinely inspired already were broadly considered divinely inspired in Christian circles. They were essentially making authoritative what most other people already knew.

I still don't understand what your problem is with this. Are you suggesting that they should have accepted every book proposed for entry into the New Testament as divinely inspired? They had a process and a method, not based only on their own thinking, though their own thinking was certainly very valid, considering that they were very important and knowledgeable church leaders.

There were essentially five criteria that the books had to fulfill before they were accepted as a part of the New Testament.

1)Is it authoritative?

Does it contain actual words from God, such as those that come after, "thus saith the Lord"?

2)Is it prophetic?

Was it written by a man of God?

3) Is it authentic?

The fathers had the attitude of "if in doubt, throw it out!" This enhanced the validity of the validity of their discernment concerning the canonical books.

4) Is it dynamic?

This basically means, "does it come with the life-transforming power of God?"

5) Was it received, collected, read and used?

This basically asks whether it was accepted by the people of God earlier on. Peter's having in 2 Peter acknowledge Paul's work as Scripture was helpful. Paul I think is the single biggest writer in the New Testament.

Apostolic authority was also a useful test for canonicity. This doesn't necessarily mean the apostle wrote all of them so much as meaning it was prepared under the direction of the apostles, or was approved by the apostles.

As I get out my source books, suddenly I become a fountain of knowledge .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Where the heck did RÃ*an go?

Dunno. What thought you of my response on prophecy?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Where the heck did RÃ*an go?

And here she is! With Mertucio as well . But you're gone :P.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Where the heck did RÃ*an go?

Sorry I've been away - I just got back from seeing Sponge Bob Squarepants movie with 5 kids, and now I'm ready to tackle this thread again!

Lief, I think I"ll ask you to please drop the discussion (at least long posts) at this point. The purpose of this particular thread, unlike the theology thread, is for one person to be in the Hot Seat and tell why THEY believe what they believe, and to field questions from other people. I hope you'll take a turn in the hot seat - get your info ready! - but I think the thread is losing focus, so I"m going to reel it in a bit.

I'm sorry I've been away, Nurvi - the kids are off school this week and I've been busy with them. There's one question I wanted to tackle, then I need to drop off a few kids at their houses, then I'll be back and tackle some more.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Lief, I think I"ll ask you to please drop the discussion (at least long posts) at this point.

Okay. No problem. (Looks smug) After all, I got the last word .

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The purpose of this particular thread, unlike the theology thread, is for one person to be in the Hot Seat and tell why THEY believe what they believe, and to field questions from other people.

I forgot . I didn't recall that this was that same thread. My bad.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I hope you'll take a turn in the hot seat - get your info ready! - but I think the thread is losing focus, so I"m going to reel it in a bit.

Have you taken a turn yet?

[Rían]

Elfhelm - I know you saw Wayfarer's post on your question of : ""Wouldn't an act of charity without expectation of eternal reward be more pure? " Did you see mine? If so, did it make sense?

Elfhelm, you also asked this : "Herod died in 4 AD, Quirinius was appointed governor of Syria in 6 AD, so how could Jesus be born both while Herod was alive (Matt 2:1) and Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2)?"

Did you realize there are several Herods? It's not a personal name, but rather a family name. It belonged to the Herodian house. Herod Antipas is usually called "Herod" by Luke, and "Antipas" by Josephus. There's Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas, Herod Philip II, Herod Agrippa I, and Herod Agrippa II.

I'll get back to you with more detail about Quirinius, etc. - he matches up with one of those Herods - I'm sorry, I have to go now again to drop kids off at various houses Hopefully be back in an hour!

[Rían]

(Lief - it's my turn NOW! )

(Lizra went first, then I think Nurvi and Dylan and BoP, and now it's my turn.)

[Nurvingiel]

Aha, well RL and your kids come first RÃ*an! I have returned to procrastin-- I mean post, more!

I liked your response on predictions in the Bible Lief. I just didn't have any comment except that it was very interesting.

Even though there's probably lots of questoins left dangling... I'm going to throw in one more. Okay two, but they go together.

What are your views on predictions in the Bible (Old Testament, New Testament, or both)? (Or deal with specific ones if you prefer.)

What meaning, if any, do they have in your life?

I don't know what got me started on this tangeant, but you don't have to answer if it's actually not important to you, or if you'd rather field other questions.

[Elfhelm]

They obviously decided to leave out Thomas. So far there have been no real complaints among biblical scholars regarding Thomas.

And then there's "Q". How do we know they didn't leave that out, too? How do we know it wasn't just lost but that some anti-Arian chose to burn it because of politics?

I just don't trust humanity. My inner skeptic says that the Bible is framed the way it is from sheer politics. For instance, why not put Mark first?

I think they will find "Q" someday. And maybe someday they will put Thomas and "Q" back in it. Of course, they will certainly claim to be divinely inspired.

For the record, books in the OT have been removed. For instance, the Book of Enoch.

p.s. I think you meant to say heresy, not fallacy.

[Lief Erikson]

Am I allowed to respond to that, RÃ*an?

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Elfhelm - I know you saw Wayfarer's post on your question of : ""Wouldn't an act of charity without expectation of eternal reward be more pure? " Did you see mine? If so, did it make sense?

Actually, I didn't see it because work took me away. I just read it, and it was lovely. I understand. I certainly don't want to belabor my point. I asked it and you answered very clearly.

Yet I am still not particularly pleased overall with religions and their reward systems. I guess it's the disturbing things that some people do expecting a reward, which I know you also find upsetting, that makes me wary of all talk of rewards even for good things.

But on the third hand... I oughta consider the lilies...

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Am I allowed to respond to that, RÃ*an?

LOL! You definitely SHOULD because it has a direct question to you.

[Lief Erikson]

Quote: Originally posted by RÃ*an
Lief, I think I"ll ask you to please drop the discussion (at least long posts) at this point. The purpose of this particular thread, unlike the theology thread, is for one person to be in the Hot Seat and tell why THEY believe what they believe, and to field questions from other people. I hope you'll take a turn in the hot seat - get your info ready! - but I think the thread is losing focus, so I"m going to reel it in a bit.

[Nurvingiel]

The point of this thread though, is to ask the hotseater questions. But you guys are more than welcome to talk about that in the "Theology" thread. (It fits too )

EDIT: Cross-posted with Lief.

[Nurvingiel]

I just had the best idea ever for organizing this thread. Every time you ask a question, start your post with three cool smilies, like I did! Then it will be easy to find/summarize unanswered questions! What do you think guys? (If you have ever made any of the summary posts, I think you'd be supportive. )

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The point of this thread though, is to ask the hotseater questions. But you guys are more than welcome to talk about that in the "Theology" thread. (It fits too )

EDIT: Cross-posted with Lief.

Can I try the famous "newbie excuse"? I've been away for months...

[Lief Erikson]

I'm moving to the Theology thread to answer.

[Rían]

I'm back - and I see you solved things! Yes, I think it's a good idea to move that particular discussion to the Theology thread - thanks

Yes, the triple-smilie idea is good, Nurvi - it certainly catches the eye - but don't most posts contain questions here?

Elfhelm - did you see my answer re the Herodians? And another point about Quirinus - the taxing was not actually carried out until the time of Quirinius, altho the registration regarding the taxation was earlier.

And yes, consider the lilles Beautiful, aren't they? I really understand your wariness about the reward thing, but please be careful to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think that the fact that a virtuous person actually enjoys doing good doesn't take away from anything. I think you're right to react against the hypocrisy of doing good for the sake of being noticed by people - God Himself certainly didn't like that, either! Yet beauty itself is good, and our souls are made to respond to beauty. And it is a beautiful thing to do good, IMO.