Billy Graham at 87 - Part 1

Discussion Open Forum
21

[quote=“Josefus”]Wrong.
All the quotes that I used are directly ATTRIBUTED to Jesus.
Not to Paul, John or any of the other apostles or church fathers.
You can say “well we don’t really know that he said those things”, and you’re right.
Which is where faith comes in, which is an entirely different subject.[/quote]

"Attributed* doesn’t mean he actually said those things.

That’s all I am saying here.

Look, postmodern Christians do not take the Bible literally. Post-Modern Jews do not take their Scriptures literally, either.

As for modern Muslims, maybe they do take their scriptures literally, and that’s scary. !!!

Which side are you on? Modernity or the the Middle Ages? That’s all I am saying here.

As for faith, that’s a private thing, and I respect your faith whatever it is. But this is not a faith-based forum, this is 2006. Come on!

22

Cola a Christian?

23

In his own blessed way Cola is all things to everyone, christians too.

HG

24

[quote=“Cola”][quote=“Josefus”]Wrong.
All the quotes that I used are directly ATTRIBUTED to Jesus.
Not to Paul, John or any of the other apostles or church fathers.
You can say “well we don’t really know that he said those things”, and you’re right.
Which is where faith comes in, which is an entirely different subject.[/quote]

"Attributed* doesn’t mean he actually said those things.

That’s all I am saying here.

Look, postmodern Christians do not take the Bible literally. Post-Modern Jews do not take their Scriptures literally, either.

As for modern Muslims, maybe they do take their scriptures literally, and that’s scary. !!!

Which side are you on? Modernity or the the Middle Ages? That’s all I am saying here.

As for faith, that’s a private thing, and I respect your faith whatever it is. But this is not a faith-based forum, this is 2006. Come on![/quote]

Faith is a private thing in the modern secular West, that’s for sure. But I’m just curious which denomination you belong to that does not believe in Christ’s Second Coming. You say you’re a Christian, and yet you don’t believe that the Bible contains Jesus’ Word? That is very confusing.

If you don’t wish to elaborate, that’s fine, but please don’t try and speak for “modern Christians”. Even though most modern Christians don’t believe in say, the story of Genesis literally (as you can see from my avatar, neither do I), surely the overwhelming majority believe in Christ’s divinity. He came to us a man, He died for our sins, and He will come again.

25

It’s very simple, really.

The definition of a Christian: one who believes in the divinity of Christ.

That is the essence of Christianity: belief in the divinity of Christ.

Now, you can believe that Jesus was a good man, a wise man, but not divine, and that’s fine for you, but that means you’re not a Christian.

The Bible, as almost any serious scholar (or even layman) of it knows, was written by man and thus inherently flawed. Translated from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English, there were obviously a few slip-ups in translation. It’s full of contradictions and much of it has to be taken metaphorically not literally for it to make any sense (does anybody really take Genesis at a literal level?) You can believe all of the above and still call yourself a Christian. But, you know, the whole “believing in Christ” thing is pretty key.

26

I have a lot of respect for fundamentalists. I mean if you are going to believe that the bible is the word of God then you need to follow what the bible says. You can’t pick and choose which part of it to believe. If you do that then you might as well just make up your own religion.

27

I think that’s the perfect thing to do.

HG

28

Start a new religion! Now that’s tempting. Are you putting yourself up to be the great one HG? :wink:

29

That’s exactly what the early church did. They picked and chose which books were going to go into the official Bible and which weren’t. Really, it’s awfully naive and historically ignorant to not be aware that the Bible is a collection of documents collected over thousands of years by leaders of the Jewish and Christian communities. There were literally hundreds of books by hundreds of prophets that could have gone into the Old Testament, but were passed over. Same with the Apocrypha of the New Testament.

Personally I think the diversity of faith is one of Christianity’s strengths. Protestant I am. Make up your own religion, that’s what millions of Christians have done for centuries.

30

I don’t disagree with you Mod lang I’m just saying pick a book and stick with it. Whether it’s King James, Koran, or some science fiction book. If you’re saying there’s no way to know God’s word, then believe that.

31

[quote=“Richardm”]… pick a book and stick with it. Whether it’s King James, Koran, or some science fiction book. If you’re saying there’s no way to know God’s word, then believe that.[/quote]I kinda got stuck with “Le Souffle De L’ Armattan” myself. Not doing me any good though. It was written by Sylvain Trudel, my favorite writer.

bobepine

32

Cola, I respect your personal beliefs and you’re free to believe whatever you wish. I however do not agree with you on several points.

First off, I’d like to state that I’m still a Christian because I’m a history student. Everything that I believe in as a Christian is supported by history. What isn’t is supported by faith. (As Mod Lang mentioned - Genesis being taken literally). But the basic figures of the Bible is all historically supported.

Secondly, wrt what has been said about the Bible and translations and the early Church. The 12 Apostles (Aftrer Judas’ death Paul being the 12th) went out after the ascension of Christ (ascending as a living being into Heaven being a basic tenet of Christianity) and proclaimed all that they experienced, learnt and saw in the time they spent with Christ, spreading the Gospel as Christ had instructed them to. Here you must bear in mind that these men did this at great personal risk and for absolutely no financial gain. This is historically supported as they were persecuted by the Sanhedrin and the Romans equally. The message of a living Messiah and a single God not sitting well with either group. For the Sanhedrin half of the problem could have been over having Him crucified in the first place, and in so doing breaking 30 Jewish laws - despite the fact that the existence of Jesus the Christ, his family line and all that would happen until and after His crucifiction being well prohpesied within the Torah and what we have today as the Old Testament. In short, they had nothing to gain and all to lose - Paul most of all. Furthermore, most of them were uneducated fishermen, one was a doctor and one a tax collector. If He really had died and seeing as nothing was to be gained, why didn’t they just go back to doing what they had done before the man.

The Church, as some call it, is not part of Christ’s teachings. In fact he abhorred organised religion and said that it is an abomination in the eyes of God. Partly because of the state the Jewish faith was in at that stage and that men tend to corrupt the words of God, forming their own laws to “supplement” God’s word. Christ clearly states on more than one occasion that we are the church. His Church are the people who believe in “I am the way, the truth and the life. No man shall come unto the Father but through me.”…“The crucifixion, the death, the ressurection and the ascension of Christ to the right hand of God”. The Believers are the church. Not buildings and “official” doctrines and self proclaimed “voices of god”. If you don’t believe that, that’s all good and well. But you are simply not a Christian.

The “early church” as some have mentioned is not the Christian movement or faith, for want of a better word. The “early church” came to be in the 4th century when Emperor Constantine made “christianity” the official Roman religion. The reasons for this was plentiful, but the main reasons were, it was becoming apparent that the Roman Empire wouldn’t last much longer and that, although Chirstians were persecuted the faith just kept growing more and more popular.
Thus:

  1. “The Church” was formalised and legalised within the Emipre.
  2. The head of the church would henceforth be the Emperor of Rome. His title being Pontifex Maximus - or the Pope. Nothing new or odd about that as that was always a title that Roman Emperors held over the entire Roman religion since Julius Ceasar.
  3. Roman religious beliefs were melded with that of Christianity. Hence the statues and paintings bearing a striking resemblance to that of the Roman pantheon before Constantine. The Statues seen in the Vatican Square today are nothing other than statues of old Roman gods such as Mars, but now bearing the names of St Peter etc…
  4. To aid in the spread of the religion and acceptance by the vast majority of Roman citizens, pagan festials and beliefs were incorporated. Hence current Christian festivals fall on or near the celebrations of pagan festivals - or where this is not the case, things like Christmas trees and Easter bunnies are common but have nothing to do with the actual Christian belief itself.
  5. Doctrine such as confession, priests giving absolution (the Church holding the power of excommunication) and so forth were introduced to give the Emperor further control and power over his citizenry.
  6. The Roman bible was translated from Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic into Latin (still the official language of the Church) by scholars in Egypt known as the Alexandrian sect. These scholars were not Christians but still followers of the anciant Egyptian religion and so brought into the translation some of their own beliefs as they could not entirely accept the idea of a single God.

The most common English translation is the King James bible. This book was translated in 1611 by command of King James I. He commanded it be strictly translated from the original texts without corruption. The Old testament being taken from the Torah for the most part.

If you call yourself Christian, you have nothinhg other than the word of God, or the Bible to go on to base your faith on. As has been said by another poster, if you accept one part you have to accept all of it. You can’t decide which parts you like, discard the rest and still call yourself a Christian in the true sense of the word. It’s your own choice what you wish to believe, but in the same way that I can’t call myself Muslim if I don’t believe that Mohammed is the true prophet opf Allah, I can’t call myself a Christian if I don’t beleive in import parts of scripture…

I write this all so as to bring distinction between being a Bible believing Christian and other non-bible based denominations, and, what exactly the Bible is to be defined as the King James translation, and other translated versions that are the same but in a different language (at least to my mind anyway). It is not meant to offend, but to clarify the distinction.

Furthermore, many mainstream Christian movements are disagreeable to me. I am also not of the opinion that onje denomination is superior to another. For these reasons, and what I believe to be Christ’s opinions on organised religion, I personally don’t belong to any denomination. I was baptised in the Anglican church and confirmed in a Calvinist church, but I belong to none. I only believe in the Bible and all it contains.

So Cola, where you fall into all this, and exactly what and why you believe in what you do I’m not sure. However, I think it would be very interesting to have a chat with you over a beer or two about it one day.

Cheers.

33

Thank you Bismark. That was informative. As long as belief is a choice, I think we can all respect one another.

34

I agree totally. :wink:

35

bismarck,

Excellent post. All stuff I’ve read about, but I like the eloquent way you explained everything. I would just make one point. While I agree with you that one shouldn’t simply pick and choose from the Scriptures what they wish to believe, keep in mind that centuries before Christ’s birth, Jewish children learned moral lessons through parable and analogy. And of course Christ himself often taught through parable. I don’t believe that the story of Genesis was necessarily meant to be taken literally. The Creationism v. Evolution debate would take this thread completely off topic, but suffice to say that I don’t think not believing in the story of Genesis literally means one isn’t a Christian.

36

Great post. I nominate it for the “classics” thread.

37

I second that. Lots of bismarck’s posts deserve that nomination, but this one in particular I found highly informative and enjoyable.

38

Very good post, thank you!

I was baptized and confirmed and raised in the Catholic Church, and now I’ve been born again, and baptized again, in a Pentecostal Church.

I’m not sure what that makes me. I dislike labels, anything that divides and sorts people. I prefer to call myself simply a Christian.

39

[quote=“gao_bo_han”]I second that. Lots of bismarck’s posts deserve that nomination, but this one in particular I found highly informative and enjoyable.[/quote]I agree and this is what you have to do when you spot a post like that.

[forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.ph … 238#516238](Classic posts

bobepine

40

Hey bismarck, not to interject in your theology, but I haven’t been following this one and as a few posters have found yours informative there’s a couple of points I’d like to lob back at you for consideration.

[quote=“bismarck”] Christians do believe what the Bible says, as they believe it is the Word of God.[/quote] Gotta go with Cola on this one. I’m not aware of the Big Guy ever picking up a pen, or copy editing the received text. Call me a cynic or a realist, or a doubting Thomas, but if or when He ever whispered in anyone’s ear, I’m betting that “inspired” or not, representing the full gist of it to others would be well-nigh impossible.

[quote=“bismarck”]The most common English translation is the King James bible. This book was translated in 1611 by command of King James I. He commanded it be strictly translated from the original texts without corruption. The Old testament being taken from the Torah for the most part.[/quote] And there was much rejoicing over the near unanimity the translators achieved while working on the KJV–something along the lines of “working with divine inspiration” may have be said. Really, that degree of unanimity shouldn’t have been surprising since the KJV is in many ways a revision of William Tyndale’s translation (1525) which was heavily inspired by Luther and owed something to Erasmus. And with Tyndale’s version floating around for 86 years–even if the Geneva Bible was more popular–I’m thinking it had an influence. I can’t say it any better than Keynes:

[quote=“bismarck”]If you call yourself Christian, you have nothinhg other than the word of God, or the Bible to go on to base your faith on. As has been said by another poster, if you accept one part you have to accept all of it. You can’t decide which parts you like, discard the rest and still call yourself a Christian in the true sense of the word. It’s your own choice what you wish to believe, but in the same way that I can’t call myself Muslim if I don’t believe that Mohammed is the true prophet opf Allah, I can’t call myself a Christian if I don’t beleive in import parts of scripture…

I write this all so as to bring distinction between being a Bible believing Christian and other non-bible based denominations, and, what exactly the Bible is to be defined as the King James translation, and other translated versions that are the same but in a different language (at least to my mind anyway). It is not meant to offend, but to clarify the distinction.[/quote] Sorry, that’s poppycock and internally inconsistent. Reread the bolded statements and tell me if I’m mistaken in seeing that you believe you both “can’t pick and choose” and “must believe the important parts”. If you can’t pick and choose, how do you assign relative importance? How do you reconcile contradictions within the text? How do you deal with the fact that the book, as it stands is an artifact of editorial decisions regarding what should be included, and what’s apocryphal. (Decisions which grew out of a tradition that–in some ways–predates the written accounts.) Heck, if you’re going to be strictly literal, how do you deal with Mark 2:27: “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath”? It’s possible to believe in the Bible, and not the literal truth or contempoary applicability of every line of scripture. Or do you observe all of the dietary laws that make so much practical sense in a desert, but not elsewhere, and not in the presence of refrigeration? “Not an important part” perhaps, unless you’re kosher, but then, who’s deciding what’s important? Ordinary men, I believe.

[quote=“bismarck”]Furthermore, many mainstream Christian movements are disagreeable to me. I am also not of the opinion that onje denomination is superior to another. For these reasons, and what I believe to be Christ’s opinions on organised religion, I personally don’t belong to any denomination. I was baptised in the Anglican church and confirmed in a Calvinist church, but I belong to none. I only believe in the Bible and all it contains.[/quote] Which makes your choice of a Calvinist church over an Anglican one, and to stand aside from any particular denomination, apt. Luther’s rolling over in his grave, but this is precisely where his freedom of conscience argument leads.

Anyways, not to rain on your theology, just somethings to think over.