wtf do you mean by christianity?
there was no single religion known as christianity when jesus was born and died that was created in the 1st century till today.
Goalposts
The events of the book of acts obviously happened prior to their writing, which obviously was disseminated prior to the development of the canon. That began in the second century.
The oldest Bible which contains the full canon of the New Testament is Codex Alexandrinus, dated to 325 AD. It contains the Septuaginta and the New Testament, written in Greek.
The consensus is that the New Testament books have been originally written in Greek, with the possible exception of Gospel of Matthew, which appears to have originally been written in Aramaic and translated to Greek.
The oldest New Testament manuscript (Gospel of John) has been dated to 125 AD. It has been written on a papyrus, and in extremely bad condition.
Again I'm just showing that Christianity existed in the first century
2 years ago
Anonymous
There was no canon of texts known as the Bible prior to 325 AD, the oldest text in the Bible dates to 125AD nearly a century after Jesus or any of his apostles died.
2 years ago
Dirk
The oldest extant NT manuscript is not the same as the oldest text in the bible, which is the material Job probably borrowed from
2 years ago
Anonymous
Was there any book in the first century that contained the complete books of the new testament?
How about the 2nd?
How about the 3rd?
The 4th century is the birth of the bible.
2 years ago
Dirk
The Bible is the text. The text predates the use of a single codex. There probably was not a biblical codex prior to the 4th century, probably later.
What relevance does this topic have to our discussion?
2 years ago
Anonymous
was there anyone alive from the 1st-4th century who had any idea about the canon of the bible that we hold today?
2 years ago
Dirk
Yes the manuscripts were copied and shared. Different places had a fewer and greater number of texts at different times. I'm not accepting any more gotcha questions now, thanks.
2 years ago
Anonymous
so people knew that each of these books were the canon of books from the 1st-4th century?
And no other books were canon?
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation
2 years ago
Anonymous
Dirk, I just want you to know that the reason you are disrespected isn't because you're a tripgay. It's because you're a coward who runs away in every thread because you can't actually answer the questions posed. That happens a lot because you're both invested in an incoherent belief system and you're too stupid to come up with good apologetics for it, but running away like a little b***h-boy doesn't actually make you any more mature.
I don't really think IQfy is for you. Have you thought about finding a website more your speed? Say, Knittingparadise.com?
2 years ago
Anonymous
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible#:~:text=%20Non-canonical%20books%20quoted%20or%20alluded%20to%3A%20,4%3A16%20%22read%20the%20epistle%20from%20Laodicea%22%29%20More%20
The list of Rejected books, not considered part of the New Testament Canon.
The book of Jubilees
Epistle of Barnabas
Shepherd of Hermas
Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans
1 Clement
2 Clement
Preaching of Peter
Apocalypse of Peter
Gospel According to the Egyptians
Gospel According to the Hebrews
2 years ago
Anonymous
The Gospel of John, like all the gospels, is anonymous.[14]
2 years ago
Anonymous
If Jesus established a coherent religion why did it require centuries of theological debate to determine the details of said religion?
2 years ago
Anonymous
*remains unrefuted*
2 years ago
Dirk
If Jesus established a coherent religion why did it require centuries of theological debate to determine the details of said religion?
If you're not gay, why do you have coitus with men?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because Jesus did it. That naked boy in Gethsemane.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't have sex with men or women 🙁
But is that how Jesus wants you to talk to people??
2 years ago
Dirk
Yes the god of the Bible (my god) mocks his enemies, and homosexuals are enemies of my god
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm not a homosexual though. I'm a virgin who doesn't even try to talk to girls because I'm a sperg like you.
2 years ago
Dirk
I'm married
If you're not a gay don't make gay posts
2 years ago
Anonymous
The bible you hold in your hand in its entirety of its writing you believe that people in the 1st century read it in its entirety?
2 years ago
Dirk
No
Being married to a man does in fact make you gay, Dirk.
Cope
2 years ago
Anonymous
Cope with what? There's nothing wrong with being gay Dirk. Why do you have so much hate in your heart?
2 years ago
Dirk
Read Romans 1, Ecclesiastes and the imprecatory Psalms
2 years ago
Anonymous
where do you get your interpretations from the bible?
2 years ago
Dirk
I've studied hermeneutics and historical theology
So commentaries
Are you ever going to explain how your specific form of Christianity existed from the beginning of the religion or are you just going to engage in irrelevant arguments about homosexuals?
I don't claim it has
2 years ago
Anonymous
OK then can you explain how your version of Christianity is consistent with the beliefs of the early church?
2 years ago
Dirk
Sure, there's an absence of disagreement between what my church teaches and what the church through the ages has declared as orthodoxy. Most importantly I follow a new testament derived practice of Christianity.
So like, why even pretend at this point?
Pretend what?
2 years ago
Anonymous
That you're something other than a flaming la-la fruity homo-man.
2 years ago
Dirk
Again, I am married
2 years ago
Anonymous
To a man. Yes, we've gone over this. That doesn't make you less gay just because the government gives you a tax benefit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Pretend at being a Christian
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm not entirely familiar with your exact beliefs but I remember you describing yourself as a Congregationalist while the church that established the common Christian orthodoxy at Nicaea was presided over by bishops.
2 years ago
Dirk
In that regard my ecclesiology is ante nicene
But read the Cambridge platform, there's no reason a congregationalist system can't organize a synod
To a man. Yes, we've gone over this. That doesn't make you less gay just because the government gives you a tax benefit.
That wouldn't be a marriage
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That wouldn't be a marriage
Sure it would be. Marriage is a legal issue. One of property and inheritance. As long as the laws of the land recognize two men getting married, it's a marriage.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why do you accept decisions made by ecclesial leaders who you no longer accept now? And I'm assuming that you don't believe that Christ is physically present in communion which was previously the consensus of the Church, how do you account for that?
2 years ago
Dirk
I accept the historical doctrines of the church as expressed in the ecumenical councils and creeds
If there were an ecumenical council in 2030 I would expect it to also be orthodox
Physical presence has not been the consensus of the church
2 years ago
Anonymous
Do you accept all of the Orthodox Church's claimed ecumenical councils? What are the criteria which determines an ecumenical council's validity? Obviously you don't accept the later Catholic councils.
2 years ago
Dirk
It has to be ecumenical which hasn't happened since the schism
2 years ago
Anonymous
OK so you accept the seven Orthodox ecumenical councils. Why don't you accept the physical presence then? Both the western and eastern churches eventually adopted the position and it was never seriously challenged until the Reformation.
2 years ago
Dirk
Wrong
I accept real presence and not physical presence
I reject physical presence because it compromises Jesus' human nature and isn't demanded by the text
2 years ago
Anonymous
Alright that's one of those semantic disputes. Why do you think that bishops have been the dominant form of Christian organization if autonomous congregations is the ideal? Orthodoxy is insistent on their importance and Catholicism went so far as to make one of them the supreme head of all Christians and it remains the largest form of Christianity today. Why would God allow this distortion of his original plan for the Church?
2 years ago
Dirk
Because the state was wrongly confused with the church in a process called sacralism
And all reformed churches do affirm the bishop, we just identify the bishop as the elder like the Bible says. To use bishops is not to be episcopal.
2 years ago
Anonymous
But why did the episcopal form originate in the first place if bishops were only supposed to be elders? Was it previously fine and then only became unwise after entanglement with the state authorities? What would you have done if you lived in the Middle Ages, start an underground church?
2 years ago
Dirk
It was a development that happened because of the confusion between the state and the church called sacralism
Here's a book on it
https://www.gospeltruth.net/verduin/hybrid.htm
In the mid ages I would have happily attended a deficient church just like I do now
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why does God permit this though? He regularly intervened throughout the periods described in the Bible, what is preventing him from providing divine inspiration to Christian leaders in more recent times on the correct theology? Surely the Pope's self-designation as Vicar of Christ would anger him if it were not true.
2 years ago
Dirk
I see no scriptural promise that God will at all times reprove false teachers. It didn't happen in judges.
2 years ago
Anonymous
OK but it seems strange that only some parts of the world would be Christian and even those places would have considerable internal divisions about the religion. Do you believe that explicit personal acceptance of Jesus is necessary for salvation? Are all pre-Columbian Indians burning in Hell?
2 years ago
Dirk
Yes, and yes however I allow for the possibility of christological visions
2 years ago
Anonymous
God appears fairly malevolent in this scenario although since I'm assuming you're a Calvinist you believe they were predestined to be damned anyway. What makes you believe these things? Why doesn't the much simpler explanation of "religions emerged from different cultures to explain the world around them" appeal to you?
2 years ago
Dirk
I believe what I do because I believe it's the best way to reconcile the biblical data. I'm a reformed molinist.
I can't prove it but I have a theory that God via foreknowledge gives everyone who would repent the opportunity to hear the gospel.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why do you believe in the Bible? What makes it more compelling than the Koran or any other religious text?
2 years ago
Dirk
God saved me. I have experiential knowledge of the holy ghost.
2 years ago
Anonymous
And there we have it. The inevitable departure of faith from reason.
2 years ago
Dirk
I haven't departed from reason, I just have a piece of evidence that's not externally verifiable. What I've departed from is an apologetic I can hope you to convert through, but I wasn't making a polemic in the first place.
If you experienced sleep paralysis, would you abandon reason if you told me about it?
2 years ago
Anonymous
I don't make sweeping spiritual determinations from sleep paralysis though.
2 years ago
Dirk
Do you deny the possibility of coming in to new knowledge from spiritual experience? Supposing the spiritual realm exists
2 years ago
Anonymous
Well yeah if you suppose that a spiritual realm exists but I see no reason to believe that it does.
2 years ago
Anonymous
This is a more difficult question than you make it sound. Let's say we knew for a fact that the spiritual realm was real and some people interacted with it. Since we also know certain mental illnesses, drugs and other ornamental factors can closely simulate what most regard as a spiritual experience, we would first have to rule those out as plausible explanations before we could assume that a person's spiritual experience was genuine.
But even then, Lets say I had a vision that the Koran was true, we could then rule I had a real spiritual experience, but Christians could simply say a demon was posing as God or an angel, and I was simply the victim of their lies. Until we gathered a large body of knowledge about the spiritual realm, we would have very little way of telling if the revelations we receive are useful.
So the answer is, maybe, but at this point its pretty dicey.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why do you think it takes until the book of Revelation for God to finally judge the prostitute of Babylon? Everything that is written in Scripture about the false prophets, the wolves in sheep's clothing spoken of in Acts 20:28-32, the false prophets in 2 Peter 2:1-3, the doctrines of devils in 1 Timothy 4:1-5. All of those prophecies have to be fulfilled. But in the end Catholicism will be no more, once Jesus Christ comes back and defeats the false prophet.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They're still the largest Christian group. God's plan is rather strange if it involves the damnation of the overwhelming majority of people who have ever lived (non-Christians and non-Protestant Christians).
2 years ago
Anonymous
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
- Matthew 7:13-14
2 years ago
Anonymous
Alright but why doesn't God make it easier for people to hear his message? No Indian knew what Christianity was for more than a 1,000 years.
2 years ago
Anonymous
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard."
- Psalm 19:1-3
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
- Romans 1:20
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes the Indians did develop the idea of a creator God but not the idea of Christ the savior. Why didn't they get an opportunity to hear about that key element for so long?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Going by the timeline of Genesis, every living soul that descended from the forefathers of mankind had a chance to hear God's word, since the first prophecy about Christ in Genesis 3:15. We learn that the Old Testament saints were saved by faith in the coming messiah, and everyone since the Fall in Genesis chapter 3 had plenty of reminders of this.
People like to speculate and come up with hypothetical worlds where this isn't the case; they like to believe in those worlds, but they cannot prove that is what really happened in reality. Getting bogged down with hypothetical scenarios where God forgot some of His creations is defeated by simply believing what God told us in His word, where in Romans 1:20 the Bible says that they are without excuse. In other words, anyone who rejects God's word will rightly be judged for their sins, for as it says the wages of sin is death. And there is no exception to this. We are asked to believe in the justice of our Creator and I firmly believe in the Lord based on His word.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Wait so how did my great grandmother who lived and died in a village in China come to hear God's word?
I don't see the connection between one of her ancient ancestors having heard of it and her having heard it
Could you explain that to me please?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Could you explain that to me please?
Well first off, like it says in Psalm 19 and Romans chapter 1, that which may be known of God is manifest in men. See Romans 1:18-20
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
So you see, that shows that all are without excuse for their rejection of the truth. This is regardless of how much or how little they know, they still have a responsibility for their sin. There is no escape from being too ignorant, even the most ignorant nonbeliever to ever live has still sinned, they have still rejected God and need to be saved. The Bible says they are "without excuse." That includes everyone who ever lived.
Now as for the fact that most cultures forgot about God, that is dealt with in Holy Scripture as well. It's not like I'm not aware of the fact that the majority of cultures to exist have forgotten God and replaced Him with idols. It says this is the case in many places in Scripture. For instance, here is what it says in the 9th Psalm.
"The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made: in the net which they hid is their own foot taken.
The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah.
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."
- Psalm 9:15-17
So you see, it's possible for entire nations to suffer for the fact that they forget God. Of course, I believe there is the potential for anyone to be saved, but the sad reality is that few are saved while many go down the broad road of destruction.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Ah right, your clarification is in line with how I understand it
I just got a bit confused by your usage of 'God's word' but I suppose that has specific theological connotations
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah, the fallen world is a really sad thing. Death is a really sad thing. We shouldn't hide from that fact, but realize it's a result of the sin that we're guilty of. Fortunately, there is a way out of this, and a Savior for those that are God's own.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why do you believe in the Bible?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Well like Christ said, "He that is of God heareth God's words" (John 8:47). And I just started believing as I was reading soon after I had thought about that. Also I found out later, Jesus also says in John 18:37, "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."
2 years ago
Anonymous
>I believe in the Bible because of the Bible
OK you can believe that but you can't expect someone else to adopt your beliefs with this explanation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but you can't expect someone else to adopt your beliefs with this explanation.
I expect some will and some won't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
see
Why do you believe in the Bible? What makes it more compelling than the Koran or any other religious text?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>wasting your time trying to rebuke scoffers and fools
2 years ago
Anonymous
Did Jesus tell you to spread the word
Yes
or
No
???
2 years ago
Anonymous
So like, why even pretend at this point?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Are you ever going to explain how your specific form of Christianity existed from the beginning of the religion or are you just going to engage in irrelevant arguments about homosexuals?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Read Mark 14:45 and 51-52.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Then please explain this:
Then when were the details of Christian theology fully fleshed out? Who were these true Christians and who are their modern heirs?
Or have your wife explain it if you can't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Being married to a man does in fact make you gay, Dirk.
2 years ago
Anonymous
got em
2 years ago
Anonymous
How do you know that this guy is an enemy of God?
2 years ago
Anonymous
It didn't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Then when were the details of Christian theology fully fleshed out? Who were these true Christians and who are their modern heirs?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Guttenberg
2 years ago
Anonymous
wait until you learn how many centuries it took for this guy to become the god of Israel
People understand it, its just generally assumed that you don't force a dispute over private religious beliefs into the public sphere. It goes without saying that if Christianity is right then modern Judaism is wrong. However, and stay with me here, when looked at from a religiously neutral perspective, it appears Christianity has changed from its source more than rabbinic Judaism has. The former appears to be a whole new religion while the latter seems more like a new sect of the older one.
Because they’re cucks
wtf do you mean by christianity?
there was no single religion known as christianity when jesus was born and died that was created in the 1st century till today.
>There was no religion known as Christianity when Jesus was born
Yeah that came after the resurrection, they were first called Christians at Antioch
there was no canon of books known as the bible in the 1st century.
Goalposts
The events of the book of acts obviously happened prior to their writing, which obviously was disseminated prior to the development of the canon. That began in the second century.
Those canons contradict each other though.
The oldest Bible which contains the full canon of the New Testament is Codex Alexandrinus, dated to 325 AD. It contains the Septuaginta and the New Testament, written in Greek.
The consensus is that the New Testament books have been originally written in Greek, with the possible exception of Gospel of Matthew, which appears to have originally been written in Aramaic and translated to Greek.
The oldest New Testament manuscript (Gospel of John) has been dated to 125 AD. It has been written on a papyrus, and in extremely bad condition.
And?
Misleading
And?
Again I'm just showing that Christianity existed in the first century
There was no canon of texts known as the Bible prior to 325 AD, the oldest text in the Bible dates to 125AD nearly a century after Jesus or any of his apostles died.
The oldest extant NT manuscript is not the same as the oldest text in the bible, which is the material Job probably borrowed from
Was there any book in the first century that contained the complete books of the new testament?
How about the 2nd?
How about the 3rd?
The 4th century is the birth of the bible.
The Bible is the text. The text predates the use of a single codex. There probably was not a biblical codex prior to the 4th century, probably later.
What relevance does this topic have to our discussion?
was there anyone alive from the 1st-4th century who had any idea about the canon of the bible that we hold today?
Yes the manuscripts were copied and shared. Different places had a fewer and greater number of texts at different times. I'm not accepting any more gotcha questions now, thanks.
so people knew that each of these books were the canon of books from the 1st-4th century?
And no other books were canon?
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
1 John
2 John
3 John
Jude
Revelation
Dirk, I just want you to know that the reason you are disrespected isn't because you're a tripgay. It's because you're a coward who runs away in every thread because you can't actually answer the questions posed. That happens a lot because you're both invested in an incoherent belief system and you're too stupid to come up with good apologetics for it, but running away like a little b***h-boy doesn't actually make you any more mature.
I don't really think IQfy is for you. Have you thought about finding a website more your speed? Say, Knittingparadise.com?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible#:~:text=%20Non-canonical%20books%20quoted%20or%20alluded%20to%3A%20,4%3A16%20%22read%20the%20epistle%20from%20Laodicea%22%29%20More%20
The list of Rejected books, not considered part of the New Testament Canon.
The book of Jubilees
Epistle of Barnabas
Shepherd of Hermas
Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans
1 Clement
2 Clement
Preaching of Peter
Apocalypse of Peter
Gospel According to the Egyptians
Gospel According to the Hebrews
The Gospel of John, like all the gospels, is anonymous.[14]
If Jesus established a coherent religion why did it require centuries of theological debate to determine the details of said religion?
*remains unrefuted*
If you're not gay, why do you have coitus with men?
Because Jesus did it. That naked boy in Gethsemane.
I don't have sex with men or women 🙁
But is that how Jesus wants you to talk to people??
Yes the god of the Bible (my god) mocks his enemies, and homosexuals are enemies of my god
I'm not a homosexual though. I'm a virgin who doesn't even try to talk to girls because I'm a sperg like you.
I'm married
If you're not a gay don't make gay posts
The bible you hold in your hand in its entirety of its writing you believe that people in the 1st century read it in its entirety?
No
Cope
Cope with what? There's nothing wrong with being gay Dirk. Why do you have so much hate in your heart?
Read Romans 1, Ecclesiastes and the imprecatory Psalms
where do you get your interpretations from the bible?
I've studied hermeneutics and historical theology
So commentaries
I don't claim it has
OK then can you explain how your version of Christianity is consistent with the beliefs of the early church?
Sure, there's an absence of disagreement between what my church teaches and what the church through the ages has declared as orthodoxy. Most importantly I follow a new testament derived practice of Christianity.
Pretend what?
That you're something other than a flaming la-la fruity homo-man.
Again, I am married
To a man. Yes, we've gone over this. That doesn't make you less gay just because the government gives you a tax benefit.
Pretend at being a Christian
I'm not entirely familiar with your exact beliefs but I remember you describing yourself as a Congregationalist while the church that established the common Christian orthodoxy at Nicaea was presided over by bishops.
In that regard my ecclesiology is ante nicene
But read the Cambridge platform, there's no reason a congregationalist system can't organize a synod
That wouldn't be a marriage
>That wouldn't be a marriage
Sure it would be. Marriage is a legal issue. One of property and inheritance. As long as the laws of the land recognize two men getting married, it's a marriage.
Why do you accept decisions made by ecclesial leaders who you no longer accept now? And I'm assuming that you don't believe that Christ is physically present in communion which was previously the consensus of the Church, how do you account for that?
I accept the historical doctrines of the church as expressed in the ecumenical councils and creeds
If there were an ecumenical council in 2030 I would expect it to also be orthodox
Physical presence has not been the consensus of the church
Do you accept all of the Orthodox Church's claimed ecumenical councils? What are the criteria which determines an ecumenical council's validity? Obviously you don't accept the later Catholic councils.
It has to be ecumenical which hasn't happened since the schism
OK so you accept the seven Orthodox ecumenical councils. Why don't you accept the physical presence then? Both the western and eastern churches eventually adopted the position and it was never seriously challenged until the Reformation.
Wrong
I accept real presence and not physical presence
I reject physical presence because it compromises Jesus' human nature and isn't demanded by the text
Alright that's one of those semantic disputes. Why do you think that bishops have been the dominant form of Christian organization if autonomous congregations is the ideal? Orthodoxy is insistent on their importance and Catholicism went so far as to make one of them the supreme head of all Christians and it remains the largest form of Christianity today. Why would God allow this distortion of his original plan for the Church?
Because the state was wrongly confused with the church in a process called sacralism
And all reformed churches do affirm the bishop, we just identify the bishop as the elder like the Bible says. To use bishops is not to be episcopal.
But why did the episcopal form originate in the first place if bishops were only supposed to be elders? Was it previously fine and then only became unwise after entanglement with the state authorities? What would you have done if you lived in the Middle Ages, start an underground church?
It was a development that happened because of the confusion between the state and the church called sacralism
Here's a book on it
https://www.gospeltruth.net/verduin/hybrid.htm
In the mid ages I would have happily attended a deficient church just like I do now
Why does God permit this though? He regularly intervened throughout the periods described in the Bible, what is preventing him from providing divine inspiration to Christian leaders in more recent times on the correct theology? Surely the Pope's self-designation as Vicar of Christ would anger him if it were not true.
I see no scriptural promise that God will at all times reprove false teachers. It didn't happen in judges.
OK but it seems strange that only some parts of the world would be Christian and even those places would have considerable internal divisions about the religion. Do you believe that explicit personal acceptance of Jesus is necessary for salvation? Are all pre-Columbian Indians burning in Hell?
Yes, and yes however I allow for the possibility of christological visions
God appears fairly malevolent in this scenario although since I'm assuming you're a Calvinist you believe they were predestined to be damned anyway. What makes you believe these things? Why doesn't the much simpler explanation of "religions emerged from different cultures to explain the world around them" appeal to you?
I believe what I do because I believe it's the best way to reconcile the biblical data. I'm a reformed molinist.
I can't prove it but I have a theory that God via foreknowledge gives everyone who would repent the opportunity to hear the gospel.
Why do you believe in the Bible? What makes it more compelling than the Koran or any other religious text?
God saved me. I have experiential knowledge of the holy ghost.
And there we have it. The inevitable departure of faith from reason.
I haven't departed from reason, I just have a piece of evidence that's not externally verifiable. What I've departed from is an apologetic I can hope you to convert through, but I wasn't making a polemic in the first place.
If you experienced sleep paralysis, would you abandon reason if you told me about it?
I don't make sweeping spiritual determinations from sleep paralysis though.
Do you deny the possibility of coming in to new knowledge from spiritual experience? Supposing the spiritual realm exists
Well yeah if you suppose that a spiritual realm exists but I see no reason to believe that it does.
This is a more difficult question than you make it sound. Let's say we knew for a fact that the spiritual realm was real and some people interacted with it. Since we also know certain mental illnesses, drugs and other ornamental factors can closely simulate what most regard as a spiritual experience, we would first have to rule those out as plausible explanations before we could assume that a person's spiritual experience was genuine.
But even then, Lets say I had a vision that the Koran was true, we could then rule I had a real spiritual experience, but Christians could simply say a demon was posing as God or an angel, and I was simply the victim of their lies. Until we gathered a large body of knowledge about the spiritual realm, we would have very little way of telling if the revelations we receive are useful.
So the answer is, maybe, but at this point its pretty dicey.
Why do you think it takes until the book of Revelation for God to finally judge the prostitute of Babylon? Everything that is written in Scripture about the false prophets, the wolves in sheep's clothing spoken of in Acts 20:28-32, the false prophets in 2 Peter 2:1-3, the doctrines of devils in 1 Timothy 4:1-5. All of those prophecies have to be fulfilled. But in the end Catholicism will be no more, once Jesus Christ comes back and defeats the false prophet.
They're still the largest Christian group. God's plan is rather strange if it involves the damnation of the overwhelming majority of people who have ever lived (non-Christians and non-Protestant Christians).
"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."
- Matthew 7:13-14
Alright but why doesn't God make it easier for people to hear his message? No Indian knew what Christianity was for more than a 1,000 years.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard."
- Psalm 19:1-3
"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
- Romans 1:20
Yes the Indians did develop the idea of a creator God but not the idea of Christ the savior. Why didn't they get an opportunity to hear about that key element for so long?
Going by the timeline of Genesis, every living soul that descended from the forefathers of mankind had a chance to hear God's word, since the first prophecy about Christ in Genesis 3:15. We learn that the Old Testament saints were saved by faith in the coming messiah, and everyone since the Fall in Genesis chapter 3 had plenty of reminders of this.
People like to speculate and come up with hypothetical worlds where this isn't the case; they like to believe in those worlds, but they cannot prove that is what really happened in reality. Getting bogged down with hypothetical scenarios where God forgot some of His creations is defeated by simply believing what God told us in His word, where in Romans 1:20 the Bible says that they are without excuse. In other words, anyone who rejects God's word will rightly be judged for their sins, for as it says the wages of sin is death. And there is no exception to this. We are asked to believe in the justice of our Creator and I firmly believe in the Lord based on His word.
Wait so how did my great grandmother who lived and died in a village in China come to hear God's word?
I don't see the connection between one of her ancient ancestors having heard of it and her having heard it
Could you explain that to me please?
>Could you explain that to me please?
Well first off, like it says in Psalm 19 and Romans chapter 1, that which may be known of God is manifest in men. See Romans 1:18-20
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"
So you see, that shows that all are without excuse for their rejection of the truth. This is regardless of how much or how little they know, they still have a responsibility for their sin. There is no escape from being too ignorant, even the most ignorant nonbeliever to ever live has still sinned, they have still rejected God and need to be saved. The Bible says they are "without excuse." That includes everyone who ever lived.
Now as for the fact that most cultures forgot about God, that is dealt with in Holy Scripture as well. It's not like I'm not aware of the fact that the majority of cultures to exist have forgotten God and replaced Him with idols. It says this is the case in many places in Scripture. For instance, here is what it says in the 9th Psalm.
"The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made: in the net which they hid is their own foot taken.
The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah.
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God."
- Psalm 9:15-17
So you see, it's possible for entire nations to suffer for the fact that they forget God. Of course, I believe there is the potential for anyone to be saved, but the sad reality is that few are saved while many go down the broad road of destruction.
Ah right, your clarification is in line with how I understand it
I just got a bit confused by your usage of 'God's word' but I suppose that has specific theological connotations
Yeah, the fallen world is a really sad thing. Death is a really sad thing. We shouldn't hide from that fact, but realize it's a result of the sin that we're guilty of. Fortunately, there is a way out of this, and a Savior for those that are God's own.
Why do you believe in the Bible?
Well like Christ said, "He that is of God heareth God's words" (John 8:47). And I just started believing as I was reading soon after I had thought about that. Also I found out later, Jesus also says in John 18:37, "Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."
>I believe in the Bible because of the Bible
OK you can believe that but you can't expect someone else to adopt your beliefs with this explanation.
>but you can't expect someone else to adopt your beliefs with this explanation.
I expect some will and some won't.
see
>wasting your time trying to rebuke scoffers and fools
Did Jesus tell you to spread the word
Yes
or
No
???
So like, why even pretend at this point?
Are you ever going to explain how your specific form of Christianity existed from the beginning of the religion or are you just going to engage in irrelevant arguments about homosexuals?
Read Mark 14:45 and 51-52.
Then please explain this:
Or have your wife explain it if you can't.
Being married to a man does in fact make you gay, Dirk.
got em
How do you know that this guy is an enemy of God?
It didn't.
Then when were the details of Christian theology fully fleshed out? Who were these true Christians and who are their modern heirs?
Guttenberg
wait until you learn how many centuries it took for this guy to become the god of Israel
125 AD
k, Dracula is now totes real and we're gonna make a religion outta it
get the frick on board
prior to 325 AD there was no bible.
Maybe contexualize it by incluidng middle eastern pagainism as well prior to strict yahwe worship.
it's extremely simplistic; assuming that you have some kind of gotcha point I will withhold agreement even if on its face it might be accurate
Modern Judaism came about after Christ though
israelite sisters.....
Jesus didn't exist.
He did, what he was up to during that existence is debatable.
>yes I am a "Christian"
>no, not like church Jesus founded, that other kind of "Christianity"...
.
test
People understand it, its just generally assumed that you don't force a dispute over private religious beliefs into the public sphere. It goes without saying that if Christianity is right then modern Judaism is wrong. However, and stay with me here, when looked at from a religiously neutral perspective, it appears Christianity has changed from its source more than rabbinic Judaism has. The former appears to be a whole new religion while the latter seems more like a new sect of the older one.
Marcionism
>Old Testament God is not God
>Jesus is God
>Jesus is God
the same god, just incarnated in the flesh.
Jesus is not God.
>Jesus is not God.
then youre either a israelite or a muslim or of some other religion or of none at all.
No I'm a Unitarian.
Same difference.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
- John 1:1
John is not canonical. The synoptic Gospels are consistent with one another but not with John.
Some other religion then
I just don't get how you read the Bible, and go like: Yeah, this explains why God checked out for 2000 years, and guess cessationism is true.