Main MenuForum Rules of Conduct (please read!)Frequent Forum Discussions Back to the Main Page |
Biblical InerrancyCommonly, folks assert "Biblical inerrancy;" that is, they claim that the Bible is the pure "Word of God" and as such, has no fault. There are many problems with this assertion, and many ways of showing that it isn't so. It has been covered many times, as well, in the forum.Perhaps the most significant discussion of Biblical inerrancy, is in the forum thread called "The Killer Contradiction." This addresses the disagreements among the resurrection-discovery accounts in the three gospels that describe it. In short, these three accounts conflict. This is discussed in depth, in that thread. Threats of Eternal DamnationAll too often we hear that we're going to be damned to eternal damnation unless we bow down and accept Jesus, or whatever. "Go ahead and scoff at God," some believers say. "At the Judgment, you'll pay!" I can't even begin to count the number of times people have tried this. Well ... this doesn't impress us. Quite the opposite. It makes the person appear small, and demonstrates that s/he has nothing of consequence to say. It's petty, and childish, to boot.As for scoffing at God, how can anyone "scoff" at something one doesn't believe in? It would be like "scoffing" at Santa Claus. Please do not accuse us of this. It won't get you anywhere, and will only make you look ridiculous. "Original Christianity"Some folks think they worship Christianity "as it was originally," according to a strict reading of scripture. Unfortunately for them, even the Bible is not clear on what this means. A few passages in Acts suggest that early Christians lived communally — that is, in communes — sharing all they had equally. Do you live this way? Would such a way of life even be practicable?Also, Acts and the various epistles, as well as the "letters to the churches" at the beginning of Revelation, show there was a good deal of wrangling, among "original" Christians, over how to conduct themselves. In short ... it's not possible to read scripture and worship as the original Christians did. Even scripture doesn't relay a clear picture of this! Biblical ProphecySome people have a very apocalyptic, "the end is at hand" view of things. While this is just fine, in itself, the problem comes in using the Bible to prove it.You see, it's not possible to assume that any given Biblical passage is "prophecy," or a prediction of coming events, without somehow making an assumption which is not stated within the Bible. Many Biblical predictions are explicitly wrong, for example, Matthew 16:28 ("Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom") [KJV], and the related Luke 9:27 and Mark 9:1. The discussion thread "Who's land is it? Here is the answer!" goes over many aspects of Biblical prophecy, and addresses many issues; have a look, if this interests you. Also the thread "Are You Ready?" deals with Biblical prophecy, and exemplifies some of the illogic associated with prophetic interpretation. Another thread concerns how the adoption of the Euro currency by several European Union nations, was not predicted by Biblical prophecy, contrary to what many apocalyptic-evangelicals believe. Extra-Biblical NotionsMany people believe that certain aspects of Christianity are explained in the Bible, however, not all of them are. Two of the more important extra-Biblical notions are "free will" and the Trinity.The Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible, per se. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are mentioned, sometimes appearing to speak of three different things. Ultimately, the notion of the Trinity came from these mentions. But nothing in the Bible actually explains the relationships among these three "Divine Persons," and the only term that speaks of them all, collectively, is simply "God." The extra-Biblical nature of the Trinity has been frequently discussed in the forum, the most recent discussion thread being "Trinity Analogy." This discussion includes a message (by me!) explaining why the notion of the Trinity was concocted. Free will is a controversial notion in Christianity. The Bible appears to support both free will and predestination. Romans 8:29-30 says, "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Ephesians 1:4-5 says, "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." Yet, Jude 1:4 says, "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation." [all KJV]
In any event, since free will and predestination are both supported and refuted by the Bible, each can only be accepted on an extra-Biblical basis. There's an excellent message in the forum, in the thread "The Meaning of Life," concerning predestination vs. free will.
These are distortions of the facts. It is true that, in 313, Constantine (prior to finishing off other Imperial contenders) declared tolerance for Christianity. That is, he made it safe to be a Christian. But he never declared it Rome's "state religion." In fact, no Emperor ever did so! The closest that any of them came was when Theodosius I, in a series of imperial orders that took years to implement, incrementally outlawed all religions other than Christianity. His last such order was issued in 391, and even then, he left the legions untouched (they could retain Mithras). It was not for another century at the very least, that the majority of the Roman population became Christian. It's also true that Constantine did summon the Council of Nicaea, and probably presided over its "opening ceremonies," but he did not stick around for the proceedings. He was not a Christian and never would become one (later myths claimed he had a "deathbed baptism," but this could not have happened as described). He did not understand Christian doctrine; had he done so, he'd have known that calling a Council was a fool's errand. His goal had been to unify rather than divide Christianity. The best one could say is that his mother, Helena, was a Christian. In fact, Constantine was rather naive where Christianity was concerned. He expected that the theological grumblings he'd heard about could be resolved. He was wrong. Moreover, the "Nicene Creed" was actually produced later in the 4th century, at the ecumenical Council of Constantinople. It was called "Nicene" because work began on it then. But Constantine was long dead and buried before anyone composed what we know as the Nicene Creed. Many claim that he worked closely with Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, who acted as his secretary for a time, and that the two of them conjured up the notion of an institutionalized Church. While the two definitely did work together, they did not invent the idea of a Christian institution. That had been building for close to 200 years. Christian writings since the end of the 1st century, speak of "the Church," and mention many efforts to codify Christianity, centralize the clergy, etc. For further reading, here's a discussion of the Council of Nicaea and an explanation of what did, and what did not, happen there. While Emperor Constantine can be blamed for many things, constructing the Christian Church is not one of them. It's simply an overstatement of his involvement in Christianity. |