Questioning the Holy Bible!!

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

Why?

CHristians should know how the bible came to be in it's current form. Otherwise, they are taking a leap of faith that it is indeed the word of God.

A historical understanding can actually deepen one's faith!

[RevDWW]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

CHristians should know how the bible came to be in it's current form. Otherwise, they are taking a leap of faith that it is indeed the word of God.

A historical understanding can actually deepen one's faith!

Maybe not knowing the historical can really be faith deepening........

[Pressing-On]

What does Paul mean in Romans 3:5 when he says, "....I speak as a man..."?

and when he says, in I Cor. 7:6. "But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment."

Is he saying that the Holy Ghost is not moving on him to write the things he is giving instruction on in these two instances?

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

Are you discounting that God is all powerful?

Couldn't He have created all the circumstances in the translators lives to be such that they'd write what He wanted written?

Hasn't God used pagans for His purpose throughout history?

Haven' you experienced what's written in His word in a personal manner?

Then why doubt?

That is, in essence, the main reason folks give for believing in the Bible. That it works, on a presonal level. That it passes the test, it is proven. It "works".

What about those for whom it does not "work"? There are many clearly written promises that are not always fulfilled. The prayer of faith will save the sick.

No, it doesn't. Say what you want, but that particular promise is almost never fulfilled. When it is "fulfilled", it is hard or usually impossible to distinguish between a miraculous recovery (if that's what was meant in the promise!) and medical or natural (over time) recovery. Some have the audacity to say, when the sick one dies, well, he got his healing in Heaven.

That completely negates the promise. It makes it utterly pointless to even write it into the Bible. No? What is the point, then? With the healing-in-heaven excuse, it is a tautology. Utterly meaingless. Pray for the sick. If they recover, voila. Miracle. If they die, voila. Miracle.

Or maybe it's the "faith". Pray for the sick. If they recover, voila. Faith has healed them. If they die, voila. Insufficient faith.

This "promise" can't lose! So what is the point of it being there?

The Assemblies of God has made a great mistake in their 16 Fundamental Truths. (I can hear your amens from here! ) Number 12 says this:

"Divine healing is an integral part of the gospel. Deliverance from sickness is provided for in the atonement, and is the privilege of all believers."

Do you Apostolics believe this, too? Or do you see the error? It is blatant, to me. It says healing is part of the atonement. They cite "By His stripes we are healed" and other scriptures. Salvation is the other part. So, there are two (main) parts of the atonement. One of which we can tell, here and now, whether it "worked", one of which we cannot. We can't tell if our faith (and whether other "steps" you want to accept) was sufficient to save us from our sins. We can, however, tell if our faith (or whatever steps that requires) was sufficient to heal us. And here's the kicker: sometime is it not! In fact, most of the time, it is not. Oh, we pray that we'll get over the flu, and we do. But if we pray for a certain retired minister I know to "get over" his hernia, hallucinations, heart condition, etc. etc., he does not. He is living out his golden years in diapers, and barely able to walk (for now), unable to see well enough to read.

Our faith wasn't sufficient for it. Or it's not in His "timing". Or God has something better in mind. (It makes me sick when I hear that one!)

Whatever.

And yet, the AG Fundamental Truth number 12 does seem to have scriptural basis. What's up with that? Is the Bible true or not? Would the Bible be more true if a different set of books were chosen for the canon? Maybe Isaiah should have been left out. And James. Matthew has its problems, too. And what about that "Train up a child" promise?

OK, so if it "works" for you, carry on. I guess you have a reason to believe it. Me? I believe it too, but in a very different way. There are many things in it that are clearly (to me) not meant to be taken literally. There is wisdom there. There is also some weird stuff.

Just my little way of going "Hmmmmmmmm!"

[RandyWayne]

I can feel your frustration! (as I feel the air pressure lower a few lbs from the collective 'gasps' at the audacity of your post. LOL)

Far far more often then I have seen God directly HEAL individuals, I have seen Him bring about better things as a result of a sickness, or He simply helps someone deal with sickness rather then heal it. I don't know the answers. I feel that Jesus and his direct apostles DID have an ability that we just do not see today. As my dad said once, Peter and Paul could probably walk into a modern day hospital and 3/4 of the residents would walk out with them. Why don't we see this today? I don't know. Is it strictly lack of faith? That may be part of it, but I also feel they had a direct blessing from God having walked with Him that we do not have the luxury of.

And everything in the bible needs to be studied in context. If apostolics were to take Acts 2:38 literally (as they claim) then they would consider the possibility of someone receiving the holy ghost BEFORE baptism impossible because it clearly says "...and then you SHALL receive the Holy Ghost" -after being baptized. So the fact that I received it BEFORE is quite clearly, impossible.
Then it also says that YOU SHALL RECEIVE, but why do some pray at the alter for months and years? (Usually until a preacher shakes their head enough to make a 'tongues like' sound come out.... At which point people rejoice because it finally happened.)
Seems pretty clear to me!

Whenever reading a verse you MUST take into account the time and to who it was being written. Context is king!

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

Maybe not knowing the historical can really be faith deepening........

One must have a reason for faith or it becomes, by definition, irrational.

Originally Posted by Pianoman

I know that the Holy Bible was inspired by God, but it was written by human beings. I can’t help but think that maybe the authors were influenced in their inspired writings by their given traditions and culture. In fact, many traditions in their culture were pagan in origin.

If you know that the Bible was inspired (breathed) by God, then why are you suggesting that the authors were influenced by their earthly cultures?

If the bible were written today, would it be different? What if God personally visited Kenneth Haney and inspired him to write an epistle to the UPCI? Wouldn’t Bro. Haney’s inspired words be influenced by the paradigm of our present culture?

If the Bible was, in fact, inspired by God, then its message would not be different.

Many folks forget that our present day New Testament 27 books were approved and canonized by the Catholic Church in 397 AD at the 3rd Synod of Carthage. They left out other epistles such as the ‘Epistle to the Laodiceans’, which up to that time had been included in the German bible. They also left out other gospels such as ‘The Gospel of Thomas’. They consider these books heresy. They also consider Oneness Apostolic beliefs to be heresy!

I seriously doubt the veracity of what you're saying here. First, there was no Roman Catholic Church in 397 A.D. Second, I'm not sure that German existed as a language in the fourth century (much less that there was a Bible translated into that language). Third, the reason they left out many books is because the authorship of many of them was spurious (people in the second and third centuries wrote the books and attributed them to well-known first century people such as Thomas and Mary Magdalene - a common practice in that day).

My point is that we as Oneness Apostolics readily accept the Holy Bible as determined by our sworn adversary, the Trinitarian Catholic Church!!! We find that the Nicean Council was in error in establishing the trinity doctrine as the official doctrine of the Catholic church. Has anyone ever questioned the omission of other epistles and gospels?

Again, there was no Roman Catholic Church back then. Also, have you actually READ the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. or the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 A.D.? Also, you seem to be suggesting that heretical books (such as the Gospel of Thomas) that promote gnosticism should have been included in the Bible!

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

One must have a reason for faith or it becomes, by definition, irrational.

"Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God."

The Greek word "Rhema" is translated as "the gospel" in Romans 10:8;17. In verse 8, it is called the "word of faith."

Satan attacks our faith by discrediting the Word of God in our lives. If he succeeds in that, he is hammering a stronghold of our spiritual life.

[StillStanding]

Why were the Gospels written so long after the death and resurrection of Christ? Assuming that Christ died around 30 A.D., even early datings of Mark (before 50 A.D.) would still put the first written Gospel 15 + after the death and resurrection of Christ. Why so long?

Maybe it was because the apostles and the original disciples spread the word throughout the Mediterranean (and perhaps beyond) primarily through word of mouth. It was not viewed that there was any reason to write the message down, until the apostles and disciples (those that had actually seen Jesus) started to die off.

Maybe it was because the apostles and disciples probably held the view that the Second Coming of Christ was imminent, and thus felt no immediate need to record the word that they were spreading for posterity. As decades stretched on, it became apparent that the Second Coming was not imminent, and more care was taken to make a record of the origins of the faith for future generations.

At best, we're looking at written recollections in memory of events that happened 15+ years earlier! I know that my memory of events 15 years earlier is not all that great and is often skewed!

As christians, we must believe that God inspired their memory or that God gave them the words to write!

Before you stone me, I'm just thinking out loud!

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

Why were the Gospels written so long after the death and resurrection of Christ? Assuming that Christ died around 30 A.D., even early datings of Mark (before 50 A.D.) would still put the first written Gospel 15 + after the death and resurrection of Christ. Why so long?

Maybe it was because the apostles and the original disciples spread the word throughout the Mediterranean (and perhaps beyond) primarily through word of mouth. It was not viewed that there was any reason to write the message down, until the apostles and disciples (those that had actually seen Jesus) started to die off.

Maybe it was because the apostles and disciples probably held the view that the Second Coming of Christ was imminent, and thus felt no immediate need to record the word that they were spreading for posterity. As decades stretched on, it became apparent that the Second Coming was not imminent, and more care was taken to make a record of the origins of the faith for future generations.

At best, we're looking at written recollections in memory of events that happened 15+ years earlier! I know that my memory of events 15 years earlier is not all that great and is often skewed!

As christians, we must believe that God inspired their memory or that God gave them the words to write!

Before you stone me, I'm just thinking out loud!

Why so long? Who knows. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all. The fragments of manuscripts that we have are dated within 30 years of Christ's resurrection but those are the earliest that we have.....maybe some were written earlier. There is tremendous documentation for the scriptures and 15-30 years is fantastic.