Hopefully it's comforting for you that this is something I have wondered about very often. Yet the circumstance has neve come up where I seriously wondered between the two. Im not informed enough on the symbolism contained in that event, or even its practical significance, but would you consider it a fair answer that we know because he did not ask Abraham to finish the deed? It seems less than saisfactory, but its hard for me to call scripture to mind on it. I have nothing to add to this at the time from a secular standpoint, and I may not ever. However I do believe that as a Christian we fundamentally have an ability to sense the presence of evil, and that it would be a mistake we can be protected of if we observe the rules we are supposed to as well as not doing anything stupid, like seances etc. Then you have to wonder about things like Mormonism. We are told never to accept any second Gospel, yet I have trouble believing a person would take something that far and believe it was divinely inspired. So I am left wondering whether I am incorrect or cults like Mormonism and Jehovah's Witness are purely man-made in nature.
Where does it say not to accept a second gospel? That would be an interesting requirement since the four gospels in the bible were not chosen as the definitive ones until about 300 years after the deaths of the figures involved, and many others were written, some from first hand sources, of which only two of the chosen ones are.
The choice was made by the First Council of Nicaea, basically at the sword point of Emperor Constantine. I assume you believe divine intervention at the council assured the correct books were chosen, but it still seems an odd command since the gospels we follow are not the oldest ones we have, and, in reality, the entire story of Jesus is actually a "second gospel" to the original tenets of the religion (Judaism).
I'll let Tony respond to this himself, but I would like to add one thing. While the New Testament wasn't canonized for 300 years after the books were written, the four gospels we use now were the primary ones being circulated. I can dredge up some actual references if you would like but I believe the evidence is in the writings of Clement and a couple other of his contemporaries.
Dont tell me this like you are giving me new information. I will try to find the reference in scripture if you like but it may take some time as I don't remember what book it was in. Let me reiterate that I am telling you this from a Christian standpoint, assuming Biblical veracity as a premise, not trying to prove said veracity to you.
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
8 verse is most pertinent to the question at hand, and as I believe I suggested before, knowing them I trust the methods used to determine what books make up the modern Bible. Even if I didn't that still leaves parts of the Bible that Christian cults protest that are not protested in any supposed account of the gospel.
As I said above, I assumed that you believed in divine inspiration for the choices.
I could argue this point more, but you have an easy counter in any point I might make in the infallibility of the bible, which you accept and I do not, so I don't think it would serve any purpose.
I'm not even sure what to make of that first sentence. My perspective on this issue is a lot different than the rest of yours so I give information so you can see my context, and know my level of information on the subject.
I could have just said "Where does it say that." but then no one would understand my reasons for asking (Which you don't really seem to have anyway, so I guess I failed there.)And the answer I got would be useless to me.
I don't really care whether you intended to sound the way you did or not, but comments like that make me want to keep my thoughts to myself.
Sorry, I was being testy and perceived an insult that didn't exist. Try not to let it bother you. I did mean to sound like that, though for bad reasons. Its only that its hard to talk about this on two fronts on the same journal entry. One where you accept Christianity as a premise and one where you do not. When you try to do that you find yourself having to try to prove the Bible ever time you open your mouth, or you are forced into an impractical situation where you have to tell people every time you say anything whether its intended for one group or the other. Do you see where I am coming from? Even to say I have an "easy way out" when talking about it is unfair, because it wasn't meant to be a secular discussion.
Take your above reply to the scripture I put up. The argument was strictly meant to be confined to Christian dogma and theology. This was made clear by me and also I think from the nature of the question. You know I value your opinion, but on this if you simply don't have one that includes any kind of theological backing I think maybe it would have been a *better* option not to comment. Although I think that you could have since you *are* knowledgable about theology to an extent. In any case, none of this excuses the way I responded though so again, I apologize.
Im not sure what you mean by your second paragraph though, but I was asuming that you meant that you asked "where does it say that" and I read "it never says that", because thats basically how I responded to it. Maybe a more neutral phrasing was in order?
Reply
The choice was made by the First Council of Nicaea, basically at the sword point of Emperor Constantine. I assume you believe divine intervention at the council assured the correct books were chosen, but it still seems an odd command since the gospels we follow are not the oldest ones we have, and, in reality, the entire story of Jesus is actually a "second gospel" to the original tenets of the religion (Judaism).
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
8 verse is most pertinent to the question at hand, and as I believe I suggested before, knowing them I trust the methods used to determine what books make up the modern Bible. Even if I didn't that still leaves parts of the Bible that Christian cults protest that are not protested in any supposed account of the gospel.
Reply
I could argue this point more, but you have an easy counter in any point I might make in the infallibility of the bible, which you accept and I do not, so I don't think it would serve any purpose.
Reply
I could have just said "Where does it say that." but then no one would understand my reasons for asking (Which you don't really seem to have anyway, so I guess I failed there.)And the answer I got would be useless to me.
I don't really care whether you intended to sound the way you did or not, but comments like that make me want to keep my thoughts to myself.
Reply
Take your above reply to the scripture I put up. The argument was strictly meant to be confined to Christian dogma and theology. This was made clear by me and also I think from the nature of the question. You know I value your opinion, but on this if you simply don't have one that includes any kind of theological backing I think maybe it would have been a *better* option not to comment. Although I think that you could have since you *are* knowledgable about theology to an extent. In any case, none of this excuses the way I responded though so again, I apologize.
Im not sure what you mean by your second paragraph though, but I was asuming that you meant that you asked "where does it say that" and I read "it never says that", because thats basically how I responded to it. Maybe a more neutral phrasing was in order?
Reply
Leave a comment