Zone1 Should The Christian Bible Be Called "The Book of Opinions?"

[ding]

Meri has just started a new thread in this section that better deals with the question. To which I've quoted you as being a questionable source of reassurance.

Only Dante knows the answer for Dante.

 

[Donald H]

Only Dante knows the answer for Dante.

See my answers to Meri in post #12.

 

[ding]

See my answers to Meri in post #12.

No. I don't care.

 

[Donald H]

NOTE: oops. I hit the wrong button. Not finished writing

I am serious in asking "Should The Christian Bible Be Called "The Book of Opinions?""

I do know that the "Books" in the Bible were selected out of a larger group of books. The Synods ruled what was in and what was out.

One quote: "During the fourth century, several church synods, such as the Councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397), accepted all 27 books of the New Testament as canonical."

We have this:

The Deuterocanonical Books

Some of the Books tell different versions of a story, whereas some Books tell a story not in other Books. Is that not "opinion?"

Some self-appointed authorities got to decide. Often by brute force anathematizing or killing off those who challenged them.

I fear it must be so. Modern science has forced new and different interpretations of what the bibles attempted to foist on humanity.

Instead, unfortunately for the churches, the new interpretations have resulted in indecisiveness and the flock has started to wander off, in search of a substitute that can shore up their emotional needs. Churches are being torn down or even burned down to make space for peddlers of an alternative source of comfort.

They have turned to big screen t.v. sets that bring the needed 'word' in a more convenient way.

 

[ding]

 

[ding]

I'm secretly hoping for someone (and by someone I mean the OP) to be swayed by Donald's argument. I give it about as much chance as hobelim or BreezeWood swaying others to join in on their bigotry.

 

[BreezeWood]

Breezie, you have a religion all your own.
Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi then, now and tomorrow.

never ...

the romans claimed wittingly their appraisal - where on that cross was placed the star of david - they knew all of them jesus is the repudiation of judaism its false commandments and hereditary idolatry.

they were never a jew, they were heavenly.

 

[Clyde 154]

The Holy Scriptures are not a collection of books based upon the "opinions of men". The record presented in the Bible is a collection of eyewitness accounts presented in order to build faith in those who were not eyewitnesses to the majesty of our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus.

"........but these are written so that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you might have life in His name." -- John 20:32

"For we (the apostles and others) did not follow cleverly devised myth when we made known to you the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." -- 2 Peter 1:16

Based upon "reason" and "logic"..........eyewitness accounting by 3 or more witnesses is considered "prima facie" truth until Objective, Reproducible, and consistent evidences prove these accounts to be false.

Conclusion: The mule never pushes the plow.......the plow must be pulled by the mule. The holy scriptures remain unbroken because no one has ever produced the objective historical or scientific evidence that prove these testimonies false.

All miraculous accounts can no more be proven in an objective fashion than they can be disproved by anyone that challenges these eyewitness accounts based upon the natural laws of physics. They are called SUPER (superior) NATURAL (to nature) events for a reason.

 

[Mashmont]

Religion is made by people for people.

Cool. So when did man create the earth, moon and stars?