Ask a Christian Theologian

Recommended Videos

jordan.

New member
Nov 9, 2008
17
0
0
Haha..reformation was 16th century clint..

lets be honest the Church can mean anything nowadays - a bunch of dudes wearing dresses in gay hats trying to legalize paedophilia.

Jesus says the only real Church are those people who live reality with him as God.
 

clint eastwood

New member
Nov 9, 2008
20
0
0
Jaythulhu said:
clint eastwood said:
The Catholic Church may have done that during the middle ages, I don't know though I would check with church authorities rather than priests as the Church would tell you that the priests are fallible in their decrees. As for earliest bible... the codex sinaiticus springs to mind - being written in the 4th century which doesn't bode well for your case. Also, Athanasius around 360AD gave a complete list of the current bible canon. Sorry but case closed.
If you can point out to me where I might obtain copies of said books for comparison? Forgive me for not taking you at your word, but that's all it is. If this turns out to be true, then I'll happily call myself wrong and be glad I've learnt something.

Also, what is the "current bible canon"? This does not sound the same as a Bible written during this time.
http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/tc_codexs.html
http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/
http://www.sinaiticus.com/
Or you could buy an english translation but its readily available on the net.

Athanasius' biblical canon was the listing of the current new testament books that we'll find in our modern day bibles. This canon has been unchanged (even the catholic church didn't add to it but rather introduced a new category for their apocryphal texts) and is supported by other church fathers and other early copies of the bible.
 

Jaythulhu

New member
Jun 19, 2008
1,745
0
0
Interesting. How does that fit with the admitted destruction of books during the last 500-odd years though? Like the books of Thomas, and those dealing with jesus' relatives? Also, the book of revelation was written after 400AD. How can it be mentioned? Or does that fall under apocryphal?
 

clint eastwood

New member
Nov 9, 2008
20
0
0
Jaythulhu said:
Interesting. How does that fit with the admitted destruction of books during the last 500-odd years though? Like the books of Thomas, and those dealing with jesus' relatives? Also, the book of revelation was written after 400AD. How can it be mentioned? Or does that fall under apocryphal?
According to tradion, Revelation of John was written in 95 or 96. Modern scholars have it at 68 or 69 around the years of the Roman emperor Nero. These dates are used by majority of scholars in dating this text. An early example of Revelation are some papyrus manuscripts found in 1930 which date to ca.200, one of which has a sizeable portion of Revelation. The church father Irenaeus also refers to Revelation in one of his letters (around 185).

Can you describe this burning books thing a bit more so i can look into that?
 

TheDean

New member
Sep 12, 2008
412
0
0
ThePlasmatizer said:
Graustein said:
Two questions.
First one, why is the Christian Sabbath on Sunday rather than Saturday? Why did they change it?
Seventh day of creation god rested, he said keep the sabbath day holy, so that's why it's Sunday.
that non-answer is crap
 

Uncompetative

New member
Jul 2, 2008
1,746
0
0
Ok. maximillan, if I wrote a new New Testament - I was thinking of calling it 'The Way' - which told the story of Jesus without miracles and the resurrection, but with the emphasis on this being God as man trying to lead us by practical example and obviously not 'cheating' through divine powers. Would there be any chance of this being accepted amongst Christians.

After all, they believed in the Talmud until the Old Testament came along.
Then the Old Testament was largely supplanted by the New Testament.
Therefore, could the New Testament be replaced by an alternative?

By the way, I am an Atheist, but I don't see that presenting a problem. I would probably publish it anonymously in the Public Domain.
 

Jaythulhu

New member
Jun 19, 2008
1,745
0
0
clint eastwood said:
According to tradion, Revelation of John was written in 95 or 96. Modern scholars have it at 68 or 69 around the years of the Roman emperor Nero. These dates are used by majority of scholars in dating this text. An early example of Revelation are some papyrus manuscripts found in 1930 which date to ca.200, one of which has a sizeable portion of Revelation. The church father Irenaeus also refers to Revelation in one of his letters (around 185).

Can you describe this burning books thing a bit more so i can look into that?
Sometime between the middle ages and the rennaisance, several books in the bible were deemed heretical or non-core to the church, and they were purged from the bible. Supposedly there was only one copy of each kept, placed in the vaults of the vatican.
 

SunoffaBeach

New member
Sep 24, 2008
269
0
0
What makes you so sure that the person you call "Jesus Christ" doesn't live today?
And I mean in person, not in the hearts of people.
 

clint eastwood

New member
Nov 9, 2008
20
0
0
Jaythulhu said:
clint eastwood said:
According to tradion, Revelation of John was written in 95 or 96. Modern scholars have it at 68 or 69 around the years of the Roman emperor Nero. These dates are used by majority of scholars in dating this text. An early example of Revelation are some papyrus manuscripts found in 1930 which date to ca.200, one of which has a sizeable portion of Revelation. The church father Irenaeus also refers to Revelation in one of his letters (around 185).

Can you describe this burning books thing a bit more so i can look into that?
Sometime between the middle ages and the rennaisance, several books in the bible were deemed heretical or non-core to the church, and they were purged from the bible. Supposedly there was only one copy of each kept, placed in the vaults of the vatican.
I don't know of any instance of that happening in the Catholic Church and their canon hasn't changed since the its first development. What you may be thinking is when the Reformers expelled the apocryphal books from the Old Testament canon meaning they only had 39 books in the Old Testament just like the Jews whilst the Roman Catholics had an Old Testament canon of 46 books.
 

SenseOfTumour

New member
Jul 11, 2008
4,514
0
0
ZenMonkey47 said:
SenseOfTumour said:
I think a lot of religion could be cleared up this way, just behave yourself and hope for a reward at the end, if that's your thing. I know that's a bit of a simplistic way to sum up every faith on the planet, tho.
Sorry friend, but this is the theological equivalent of Pi = 3

It may seem all simple and neat, but in the end it simply fails to explain the world around it. If behaving oneself is all it really takes, then Jesus' sacrifice would be meaningless, ergo Christianity would be meaningless.
Well, no-one having to die sounds like a great idea to me.
I personally can't see a problem in 'be good because you should' not 'be good because someone died for you and you'll burn forever if you don't'

But no, I wasn't trying to disprove Christianity, hell, far better minds than mine have tried.

I'm still rather bothered by the idea that, if there's an after life, and I've lived a good life, I'm off to hell because I didn't believe in God, whereas some guy who goes to church and cheats on his wife, and sins in many ways, but pops in once a week for forgiveness to 'clear his account' gets in, despite leading a less 'good' life.

Again, I'm going way out there with my ideas, almost putting myself in God's shoes, and someone like Bob Geldof who has been campaigning for years to help Africa, and raised millions to relieve suffering over there, I couldn't see me going 'Hi Bob' at the gates, and he's going...' um..hi?' and I'm then 'What? you don't know who I am? off to Hell with you then!'

Here's a nice surprise for the Christians in this thread however, I'm not going to defend the indefensible, but, the case of the perverts in the church, who sometimes show up accused of touching the altar boys, etc.

I think, this goes on in all walks of life, its just that when it happens to be someone in a trusted position with children, like teachers or doctors, or someone that is seen to be 'above' that kind of thing, like priests, its far more newsworthy and would get a double page in the paper, not a side column.

I have zero stats to back me up, but I really don't believe there's any more pedos in the church than in other walks of life, they just get more press because its a 'good story'.

Of course, the media, at least in the UK just loves to slam the church and religion in general every chance they get too.
 

Fiskmasen

New member
Apr 6, 2008
245
0
0
Could God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?


Yeah... I'm sorry, I'll just leave.
 

Jaythulhu

New member
Jun 19, 2008
1,745
0
0
clint eastwood said:
I don't know of any instance of that happening in the Catholic Church and their canon hasn't changed since the its first development. What you may be thinking is when the Reformers expelled the apocryphal books from the Old Testament canon meaning they only had 39 books in the Old Testament just like the Jews whilst the Roman Catholics had an Old Testament canon of 46 books.
That's entirely possible. It's been many years and many bottles of scotch since I last studied theology and the paranatural.
 

anNIALLator

New member
Jul 24, 2008
542
0
0
Please take this as a serious question - Why would God use a flood to kill everybody, when he could have just made them drop dead? Doesn't it seem a little over theatrical to you?
 

ZenMonkey47

New member
Jan 10, 2008
396
0
0
Dele said:
ZenMonkey47 said:
SenseOfTumour said:
I think a lot of religion could be cleared up this way, just behave yourself and hope for a reward at the end, if that's your thing. I know that's a bit of a simplistic way to sum up every faith on the planet, tho.
Sorry friend, but this is the theological equivalent of Pi = 3

It may seem all simple and neat, but in the end it simply fails to explain the world around it. If behaving oneself is all it really takes, then Jesus' sacrifice would be meaningless, ergo Christianity would be meaningless.
Could you expand that logic a bit?
Sure thing :)

According to the Bible, our sin separates us from God. We cannot get back to where we were before our fall, the separation is much too great. Getting back to God via your own efforts (ie doing good deeds) is the equivalent of trying to get to the other side of the Grand Canyon by dropping pebbles.

Obviously this is a problem for a benevolent God. He wants us to succeed, but there is a price that must be paid. So he pays our bail through the sacrifice of his own Son, Jesus. The central point of all of this is forgiveness.

Ok, so if we take out the "you can't save yourself" block, the whole thing starts to crumble. If you can save yourself, there is no real crisis. If there was no crisis, then there was no real point in God sacrificing his Son. If God sacrificing his Son was simply an exercise in S&M, then there really is no Christianity.

SenseOfTumour said:
I'm still rather bothered by the idea that, if there's an after life, and I've lived a good life, I'm off to hell because I didn't believe in God, whereas some guy who goes to church and cheats on his wife, and sins in many ways, but pops in once a week for forgiveness to 'clear his account' gets in, despite leading a less 'good' life.
I definitely see what you mean. Though you have to remember; he's not just cheating on his wife, he's also cheating on God. It's not just asking for forgiveness, you also have to MEAN it. When you feel truly sorry for what you've done, you don't want to do it again.

Man cheats on wife, asks for forgiveness:
"God... I screwed up. Please, I beg your forgiveness and the forgiveness of my wife and children."
"I forgive you, though as a consequence of your actions your relationship with your wife and children will never be the same."

Man cheats on wife again, asks for forgiveness:
"I did it again, God. Please forgive me."
"No."
"Wait... what? You're God, you have to forgive me!"
"You're right. I'm God. I don't HAVE to do anything. I know you're not sorry"
"But... but... I really am!"
"Are you trying to lie to ME? I formed you from a single cell. I know every thought from the deepest darkest pit of your soul before you do. You can sooner deceive yourself before you can deceive me. Now depart from my presence."
 

clint eastwood

New member
Nov 9, 2008
20
0
0
SenseOfTumour said:
Well, no-one having to die sounds like a great idea to me.
I personally can't see a problem in 'be good because you should' not 'be good because someone died for you and you'll burn forever if you don't'
My motives for doing good things are because I'm eternally thankful for what Jesus did on the cross for me. To use biblical terminology, God's law was written on my heart at conversion so I do good things because I want to, not because I have to.

But no, I wasn't trying to disprove Christianity, hell, far better minds than mine have tried.

I'm still rather bothered by the idea that, if there's an after life, and I've lived a good life, I'm off to hell because I didn't believe in God, whereas some guy who goes to church and cheats on his wife, and sins in many ways, but pops in once a week for forgiveness to 'clear his account' gets in, despite leading a less 'good' life.
The guy who goes to church and cheats on his wife doesn't show himself to be a repentant christian so I would instantly doubt the reality of his conversion. Just going to church and in some cases, saying some 'magic words' to get rid of sins wont work. Jesus says one must be born again to enter the kingdom of God, not pray a prayer or go to confession.

Again, I'm going way out there with my ideas, almost putting myself in God's shoes, and someone like Bob Geldof who has been campaigning for years to help Africa, and raised millions to relieve suffering over there, I couldn't see me going 'Hi Bob' at the gates, and he's going...' um..hi?' and I'm then 'What? you don't know who I am? off to Hell with you then!'
Soren Kierkegaard defines sin very well. He says that sin is building your identity on something other than God. In regards to God sending people to hell based on their sin in whatever walk of life, Luke 17:19-31 helps explain a few things. A bit of background for this passage, rich men in Israel were very, very religious people. They would appear morally upright and would give a large amount of money to the temple. Modern do-gooders.

Luke 17
19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

Do you seen Kierkegaard's definition of sin there? The rich man didn't have a name. He was defined by what he was - a man who valued wealth above all else. The same goes for good works, because as I said before, the wealthy were extremely religious people and did many good things. Also it's interesting to note that despite the fact that the rich man asked for his brothers to be warned away from going to hell, he never asked to get out. He hated it in there which is why he so desperately wanted to cool his tongue with a drop of water, yet he did not ask to get out and go to heaven. As C S Lewis said, the doors of hell are locked from the inside.