Why would we, or why should anyone believe that the particular books of the Bible were intended to be the one final compilation of scripture, and revelation of God’s plan for man. Does it say anything remotely like that in the Bible? Is there anything that makes the calim that we would have one book, one compilation of writings as the final and ultimate holy authority? There isn’t is there?
The Mormons have other scripture based on the idea that a oving God will continue to communicate his will to people who seek him
“James 1:5” and of course other religions have writings they consider holy.
If God does grant wisdom to any man that asks, why wouldn’t the holy writings of other cultures have something to offer?
That’s certainly not a problem for me. Believers have dominated society for a long time and in the past atheists suffered enough prejudice to keep it to themselves. In more recent years more atheists have begun to speak up and challange the ideas of believers. Now, in a diverse society, we have Christian groups and other believers openly and adamantly asserting their beliefs to try and affect public policy and the lives and rights of others. That conflict is not going away and won’t be solved by shaking hands.
On a smaller scale, I doubt few people here will ask you to provide proof for anything that you recognize as personal belief rather than fact. It’s believers who seem to want to bolster their faith by insisting it is supported by fact when that’s often not the case.
It is foolhardy to view ancient writings as historically accurate.
The BIble is an amazing book and that doesn’t change when we look at it realisitically.
The books that eventually became canon were selected from many writings that were circulating at the time. Even then, the books that were eventually selected were copied and recopied by hand. The study of the copies we have tell us that changes were made for various reasons.
Even if you choose to believe the original writings were inspired by God, you’re still face with the overwelming evidence that we don’t know exactly what those original writings said and what was handed down are writings translated , changed and interperted by other men.
I think this is relevant on a couple of levels. First, you don’t need certain traditonal beliefs to be true to find something meaningful and profound in your experiences.
As I began to question things I gradually realized I could release a lot of traditional beliefs and still find and hold value in other aspects.
2nd, That your beliefs are based to some extent on your personal interpretation of certain events, and as such are subject to and influenced by your emotions and subconcious.
I have to wonder how familiar you are with other religions.
Wait a minute, Didn’t you JUST say that archeology supports the Bible? Now you’re saying it doesn’t but that really doesn’t matter.
The whole point is thatn one should expect certain evidence to be available is certain biblical stories are true.
If the police hear there’s been a shootout and multiple deaths at a certain location and find no evidence , no bulletholes, no shell casings, no blood, what would you expect them to believe about that story. Would there be any good reason for them to say “well that doesn’t prove absolutely it didn’t happen”
No. Put in on your lawn and on your church lawn, but don’t presume that symbols of a particular religion are automatically okay in spaces you share with the general public who do not all share your beliefs.
Personally I think the whole religion/Christainity under attack meme comes from Christianity trying to call dibbs on this nation and finding out that a lot of people won’t go along with it.
That assumes what we have in the NT are the actual exavt words of Jesus. Other than tradition there’s no good reason to believe that, and lots of evidence it’s not true.
What about the gospel of Thomas. Should we also believe those are he words of Jesus.
That brings up several issues.
For one thing that passage says man should not alter the words of THIS book, meaning Revelation, not the Bible since the Bible did not exist.
Furthermore, it does not say God could not or would not, so the idea of continued revelation and scripture is not closed by that passage.
and, If it was God’s plan that we were going to have one authoratative book, that is essentially the inerrant word of God {where does it say that?} then why issue such a warning? If God had no intention of allowing his word to be altered and inergered with , there’s no need for such a warning.
Finally, evidence clearly shows that the books of the NT were altered many times.
actually there is evidence that the the Gospel of Thomas is older than the 4 canonized gospels, therefore it is closer to the source. Also, the Gospel of Thomas is nothing but a collection of maxims attributed to Jesus. I actually prefer that because it leaves out all the storytelling and gets right to the message.