How The Bible Was Inspired

[ReformationNow]

Elaborate how? Such as point to the countless times when historians have said that no such thing ever happened...and then found evidence it had?

[cmotherofpirl]

so how do you go from historical to inspired?

[Ellenita]

Isn't it a matter of faith?

[Aloysius]

the fact that it's never wrong, all prophecies come true, it has had the greatest impact on the world ever credit the Bible, but more importantly, they should credit the one who compiled the Bible.

The CATHOLIC CHURCH picked 27 books for the NT and 46 books for the OT and defined them as inspired by God in the 4th century. The Catholic Church picked the books which have had the greatest impact on the world, have never been proven wrong, which all prophecies about it have come true, etc. etc.

therefore, anything you say to credit the Bible credits the Catholic Church

resistance is futile. Become Catholic! B)

EDIT: Either i'm breaking the rules, or i'm not Catholic. You figure it out :P

[skuba steve]

as i stated once before....

the threat of islamic terrorists has caused vast numbers of people to turn to Christ during the past couple of years....

Does that mean that these people have the favour of the Lord upon them???

Or maybe it means that Islam is the one true faith???

Or maybe it means that God can use anything/person/group/situation to bring glory to him and change peoples lives???

If that was the case, it wouldn't matter who claimed responsibilty for the bible, ultimately it is GOD'S BIBLE and it would be in existance whith or without the help of the Catholic Church.

It's not about bringing Glory to your church, it's about bringing Glory to God and building his Kingdom.

[Aloysius]

as i stated once before....

the threat of islamic terrorists has caused vast numbers of people to turn to Christ during the past couple of years....

Does that mean that these people have the favour of the Lord upon them???

Or maybe it means that Islam is the one true faith???

Or maybe it means that God can use anything/person/group/situation to bring glory to him and change peoples lives???

If that was the case, it wouldn't matter who claimed responsibilty for the bible, ultimately it is GOD'S BIBLE and it would be in existance whith or without the help of the Catholic Church.

It's not about bringing Glory to your church, it's about bringing Glory to God and building his Kingdom.

you're comparing Islamic terrorists inspiring faith in Christ to

THE HOLY BIBLE

inspiring fiath in Christ.

it simply doesn't compare at all. sorry, you're point is not taken, because it isnt a point. it is a ummm apples/oranges situation. Actually, not even that. It's more of an apples/gun comparison.

If you're facin down the barrel of a gun, that can turn you to Christ because of fear. thats about infinitely different than if you're reading the word of God and turn to Christ.

[skuba steve]

no no...

i mean that just because a group of people produce, through their actions, a God glorifying effect, it doesn't specifically mean anything about that group of people....

the bible says that if God isn't praised then the rocks will cry out... He will use anything to accomplish his will....

so my point is that whether or not the Catholic Church cannonised the bible, it doesn't say anything about the catholic church. The bible is the word of God and he could have produced it by any means he wanted to.

My faith is not in the Catholic Church or even in my own church, my faith is in God and his word.

and i can't prove anything to you, otherwise it wouldn't be faith would it?

[Aloysius]

yep God will use anything to accomplish His will. It all has to do with providence, with Romans 8 i guess. ummm... yeah i dont think you can just write off the Catholic cannonization of the Bible as having no real meaning concerning the actual Bible..

the Catholic Church had too deep of a faith and theological discussion about it. It would be God's providence if they just put a bunch of book names in a hat and picked out 27, but with all the contreversy and such, a body of bishops who prayed about it, talked about it, discussed it, read each book prolly like a billion times, and then came up with a conclusion, just can't be chalked up to God making even a bad thing work for the good of those who love Him.

[yiannii]

Gary Hoge was an atheist, who became an Evangelical, who became a Catholic. On his site ( ) he posted what many of us may have seen, “18 Questions for ‘Saved’ Roman Catholics”. The idea, of course, is that one cannot be a Roman Catholic AND be saved. He answered them according to his experiences. But then posed 18 quesitons for fundamentalist Christians;

My Fundamental Christian brothers believe they are presenting salvation and the gospel “the Bible way,” so I’d like to ask them a few questions of my own to see if this is true. First of all, Fundamentalists (and many other Christians, too) claim that the Bible is the “only rule for faith and practice.” Anything outside of the Bible is merely human tradition. I’d like to direct my first set of questions to this doctrine, then ask some more general questions about the gospel, as it’s presented in the Bible:

1. Where in the Bible does it say what books belong in the Bible?

2. If the Bible doesn’t tell us what books belong in it, then is the Bible’s “table of contents” merely a human tradition? If not, why not?

3. If the list of Biblical books is not revealed in the Bible itself, what men drew up the list? Why do you trust these men?

4. Is their list infallible? On what authority?

5. If their list is infallible, isn’t this a “rule of faith and practice” outside of the Bible, thus disproving the idea that the Bible itself is the “only rule of faith and practice”?

6. If their list is not infallible, and is merely a human tradition, why do you trust it? On what authority?

7. Where does the Bible say that it is the “only rule of faith and practice”?

8. If it doesn’t say that, but you accept it as a doctrine anyway, isn’t that an extra-biblical “rule of faith and practice”?

9. In 1 Timothy 6:17-19, the Bible says, “Charge them that are rich in this world . . . that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life.” In the justification-by-faith-alone scheme, how does one “lay hold on eternal life” by being “rich in good works”?

10. In Galatians 5:19-20, the Bible says, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” If you live in the manner described above, will you inherit the Kingdom of God? If you live this way, are you sure you will be in heaven immediately after death?

11. In Romans 2:6-7, the Bible says that God “will render to every man according to his deeds: To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life.” If good works play no part in our salvation, then why does the Bible say that we receive “eternal life” as a recompense for “patient continuance in well doing”?

12. How do Fundamental Christian churches, which have their own distinct theology, and often boast that they are “separated,” obey God’s command that Christians “all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10)?

13. Regarding the Church’s leaders, the Bible says, “Obey your leaders, and submit to them for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account” (Heb. 13:17, NAS). Why were the Protestant Reformers exempt from the biblical command to obey and submit to the Church’s leaders?

14. If we are justified by faith alone, why does the Bible say, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (Jas. 2:24)?

15. If good works play no role in our ultimate salvation, then why did Jesus say, “[T]he hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (John 5:28-29)?

16. If our behavior as Christians has no bearing on our receiving eternal life at the final judgment, then why does the Bible say, “For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” (Gal. 6:8)?

17. If baptism is merely an empty symbol, rather than the instrument by which God affects regeneration, then why does the Bible say, “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21)?

18. If baptism is merely an empty symbol, rather than the instrument by which God forgives sins, then why does the Bible say, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38) and “Be baptized and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16)?

As these questions, and others you can think of, are discussed in detail, you will quickly see that Fundamentalism does not present salvation “the Bible way.” It presents a man-made gospel, formulated in the nineteenth century by men like B.B. Warfield, Charles Hodge, John Nelson Darby, and Cyrus I. Scofield. Ironically, it is the Catholic Church that continues to teach salvation “the Bible way,” as she has for almost two millenia. It is she who presents the gospel that was formulated by Jesus Christ, and popularized by men like the apostle Paul. And it is she who continues to warn the faithful, in the words of that great apostle,

The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. (2 Tim. 4:3-4).

[cmotherofpirl]

so my point is that whether or not the Catholic Church cannonised the bible, it doesn't say anything about the catholic church. The bible is the word of God and he could have produced it by any means he wanted to.

My faith is not in the Catholic Church or even in my own church, my faith is in God and his word.

Sure it does.

the only reason the Catholic Church picked out those books for the New testament is because,being the Church founded by Jesus Christ, it had te AUTHORITY to do so.

So your faith had better be in the Catholic Church, because if it isn't then you have no right to have faith in the Bible.

How can you have faith in a book, if you don't have faith in the people who put it togethert?

Edited September 17, 2003 by cmotherofpirl

[skuba steve]

the Catholic Church had too deep of a faith and theological discussion about it. It would be God's providence if they just put a bunch of book names in a hat and picked out 27, but with all the contreversy and such, a body of bishops who prayed about it, talked about it, discussed it, read each book prolly like a billion times, and then came up with a conclusion, just can't be chalked up to God making even a bad thing work for the good of those who love Him.

why can't it???

You just don't get it... who cares who connonised the bible???... I don't care who makes my Big Mac... I don't even kow the guy that made my big mac... but it's still a big mac and as far as im concerned he didn't invent the big mac, ronald macdonald did....

I have faith that God has provided me with a bible... its power is manifested to me whenever i read it and i couldn't give a hoot where it came from because it proves itself to be real to me as an individual.

I also have faith that the biography of Barbara Striesand is the truth too... doesn't mean that they guy who wrote it is her father...

[skuba steve]

An Accurate Text

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that "For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600." Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an accurate text, and we can work from it with confidence.

The Bible as Historical Truth

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus inDouche rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

[ironmonk]

You just don't get it... who cares who connonised the bible???... I don't care who makes my Big Mac... I don't even kow the guy that made my big mac... but it's still a big mac and as far as im concerned he didn't invent the big mac, ronald macdonald did....

You do not get it... ONLY the Church built by Christ has the Authority to teach the Gospel... ONLY a Church built by Christ has the Authority to pick the books for the Canon of the Bible.

You have very little understanding of Christ to compare the Scriptures to a big mac.

I have faith that God has provided me with a bible... its power is manifested to me whenever i read it and i couldn't give a hoot where it came from because it proves itself to be real to me as an individual.

Acts 8:27

So he got up and set out. Now there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of the Candace, that is, the queen of the Ethiopians, in charge of her entire treasury, who had come to Jerusalem to worship,

28 and was returning home. Seated in his chariot, he was reading the prophet Isaiah.

29 The Spirit said to Philip, "Go and join up with that chariot."

30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"

31 He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.

Acts 20:30

And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.

2 Peter 3:15

And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you,

16 speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.

2 Peter 1:20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

These are very key verses in about understanding the Bible. We know that men will come and pervert the meanings of the Scriptures. So we need to listen to the Church established by Christ.

It is foolish to think we can understand the bible without the Church established by Christ... The Apostles spoke Aramaic, and they wrote in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew... Without the Church that was there, we have no clue if we are correct in our interpretation... Over 1900 years have pasted since the last book of the bible was written, context of words change, we must know what went on to understand all the true meanings...

We also have other writings from the first Christians that are from the same time, and they explain the Scriptures, much like people today explain the Scriptures.

To ignore the facts is foolish pride in thinking that one might know everything that they do not need to study.

To ignore the facts is to have a shallow faith.

Protestantism leads to a disbelief in God because it is easy to show that the bible contradicts itself UNLESS you have the Church that Christ built to explain and show that it does not contradict itself.

I've been reading the bible for 24 years over and over.... I've been studying the history of Christianity for 15 years, very intensely for about 3 years....

And I say this... If the Catholic Church is not the Church built by Christ with the Authority that Christ gave Peter and the Apostles; then there is no God.

St. Matt 28:18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

You need to find the Church that has been making disciples for 2000 years, as Jesus promised, He will always be with the Church.

If you do not care about the facts, you really need to ask yourself if you really love Christ.

For if someone loves Christ, then they WILL love truth. You cannot truely love Christ without loving the Truth.

God Bless,

ironmonk

[jasJis]

Steve,

Of course you can, if you want to.

We are told to love God with all our Heart, Soul, and Mind.

He didn't say, love God with most of you Heart, a bit of you Soul, and some of you Mind if you care too.

Loving God with your Heart is loving Him with your emotions and feelings. You feel connected to Him and Love Him deep inside and your recognize it. Your Heart tells you of His love that died on a cross for you personally.

Loving God with your Soul is loving Him deep, deep, inside. Loving Him on a spiritual level that taps the essence of you way deep inside your conscience where we all can talk to God. It's that connection to the Divine we have that is part of how we are made in His image.

Loving God with your Mind is loving him with your God give cognizant intelligence. It's using the gift of your mind to understand how His will for us has been transmitted through eternity to take a glimpse at the magniture of His Glory.

You can say you don't care to know, buy why would you?

[yiannii]

You just don't get it... who cares who canonized the bible???... I don't care who makes my Big Mac... I don't even know the guy that made my big Mac... but it's still a big Mac and as far as I'm concerned he didn't invent the big Mac, Ronald MacDonald did....

But who made sure that the cows that were used for your big Mac were in good condition? Who made sure that the lettuce and tomatoes that make up the big Mac are of top quality?

Ronald MacDonald invented the big Mac but the managers of McDonalds today make sure that the burgers are consistent in all the franchises and that franchises don’t go off in their own tangents inventing their own burgers while still claiming to be the real McDonalds.

It’s the same thing with the bible and the teachings of the church. The church put together the bible and they also make sure that the church's teachings are true. There are many churches today that are off in their own tangents teaching their own things and disregarding other things. That’s why it's important to know who put the bible together because the church that put the bible together also teaches true doctrines.