The Bible

[reyb]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1582707' date='Jun 25 2008, 08:41 AM']Because they WERE lies.

ALL of your arguements are based on the concept that God is only an Idea and has no interection with People, hence why you are trying to argue that the Churches are relative, (don't lie to me here, according to all of your topics, this is [i]exactly[/i] what you've been trying to get at), I don't know what your own beliefs about God are, but I can tell you this, neither He, nor His truth are relative. They are Objective. In accordance with that, those who stray from the truth are believers of lies. Those who teach these lies become heretics.[/quote]

[indent]How do you know that ‘All of my arguments are based on the concept that God is only an Idea and has no interaction with People while on the other hand by your own admission, you said ‘I don't know what your own beliefs about God’? Nonetheless, let us discuss our issue – If Gnostics called themselves Christians therefore the Roman Catholic Church is not the Church of the entire Christianity even during those early days. It is obvious that your early church fathers did not accept them simply because they are not believer of this ‘historical Jesus’.[/indent]

[Deb]

[quote name='reyb' post='1580824' date='Jun 23 2008, 08:40 PM'][indent]But who decided that these 'other' writings must be discarded?[/indent][/quote]

The Catholic Church was the only organized church around that was based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. So, of course they were responsible for putting together the books of the bible. The Church received these books and then, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they determined which ones were in keeping with the message of Jesus Christ. So, in effect, God decided which ones were kept and which ones weren't.
If they preached stuff like the gnostics, who were so not in keeping with Christ, they were not included. It really is a pretty simple construct.

Maybe you should pick up this book: Where we got the bible, Our debt to the Catholic Church, by Rev. Henry G. Graham.

[reyb]

[indent]It is accepted by all historical account that the Roman Catholic Church did it. They collect and decide for themselves which books are ‘inspired’ which is now the bible but based on the premise that there is a historical Jesus. Nevertheless, I do admire the works of the early church father on this as it is written Phil 1:18

[color="#FF0000"]18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. [/color]NIV

What I am just trying to point out is – Roman Catholic Church is not the ‘universal’ church of all Christians even during those days because not all believing Christians who holds dearly to the letters of Apostle Paul like the Gnostics are rejected simply because they do not accept the idea of historical Jesus. (Maybe the Roman Catholic's early church father missed the [post="1438688"]other Jesus [/post]as mentioned by Apostle Paul). [/indent]

[Deb]

Gnostics belived that this world was a creation of evil powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in a evil, physical body and that only a secret chosen group of people will be given the knowledge as necessary for salvation or escape from this world.
Sounds a lot like scientology. You wonder why their writings were not part of the bible? Why would they be. They have nothing in common with the Old Testament or the writings of the new testiment, historical Jesus or not.

The books were chosen with the help of the Holy Spirit, who our Lord promised to be with the Church to guide and form it. If you can't believe the words of Christ, then you can't believe the bible or believe in Christianity in any form.

[reyb]

[indent]Maybe Gnostics believe what you have said and maybe many of them are lost but, the fact remains they hold the teachings of Apostle Paul. Now, whether they know or remain a mystery to them who is that Jesus Apostle Paul is saying is another thing. Just like today, the early church father presented the Salvation History with the idea that Jesus really come in the world more or less 2000 years ago. But the truth remains they missed who is that other Jesus. Because if they really know Him they will never introduced ‘Salvation History’ simply because the ‘inspired books’ are not history books but rather ‘testimony ‘of witnesses who saw Jesus Christ since the very beginning as it is written in Luke 1:1-2

[color="#FF0000"]1:1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.[/color]NIV

And the writer of the Gospel of Luke is referring to those witnesses who were before him like the prophets who wrote their testimony regarding Jesus Christ and obviously they are not referring to this historical Jesus.

I know you accepted that the early church fathers are guided by the Holy Spirit in choosing what book is inspired and what is not. And I may sound too harsh if I say, it is not true. As I have said, the early church fathers choose those books with one idea – Salvation History. Now, if Salvation History is true then they are guided but if not then they choose these inspired books according to their own way. Therefore we have to know if this historical Jesus is true or not. [/indent]