We don't add dialectics to the faith

Put these things at odds

Explain what you mean by that

All aspects have their place, but aren't in contest with one another. Don't forget the faith is about God, not about the bible

Which is why we're saying that the teachings of church fathers have their place

We're not throwing them out, just saying that they're different from scripture

Right. The help understand scripture.

Like. ‘Oh that’s that dudes perspective. Neat’

I personally think there's too much emphasis on information in general

I agree @Legalize

Here's another example from the sermon I heard at church today - Jesus often referred to himself as "the Son of Man." A surface reading would usually result in the interpretation that he is referring to himself as a member of the human race, which is true, but the title is actually from the prophecy in Daniel 7. When you connect his usage of this title to that passage you realize that he is making a claim to divinity. A teacher's job is to help the student of scripture make those connections.

The core truth wasn't changed, but deeper meaning is discovered.

And with the "two" blind men

People will say that it is a contradiction from another part of scripture

Not at all, no worries

Just saying, I don't find the Bible as organized today to be any more authoritative than the apocrypha or any other religious writings.

The way it was organized was far from divinely inspired.

Basically a bunch of pagan and Christian's coming together to decide what was acceptable "Canon" for both sects to create a unified gospel under.

That's your belief and that's fine

So like, say God is real. God needs the gospel of the old and new testament spread throughout all mankind for generation upon generations. But somehow, God.. in all his wisdom, intended some other 'religious writings' to be the ACTUAL Bible. What we got was a mistake?

So God, whom in this hypothesis exists, in all his wisdom... couldn't get what he actually wanted in a holy book and it's all fucked up.
Does that honestly make sense in your head?

or, okay OR.... what we got, and what has been spread through thousands of years, is what was intended, from a God whom gets exactly what he wants working through people to get it.

Are you making the case that the traditional canon is more likely correct? Sorry if I'm not understanding correctly lol

The Kelvin Timeline, ffs 😂

@RuRu it's the process of how we got the "canon" scriptures that I believe wasn't inspired.

It wasn't like God came down via divine decree or that it came from any apostlesnor a prophet.

Hell after the original 12 apostles all died (except maybe for John who some believe was given immortality until Christ's second coming) the original church structure fell apart. Most of the NT minus the gospels are simply the apostles correcting false doctrine that had grown rampant literally just a few years after Christ's death.

It's not an unreasonable stretch to think that the people who compiled the Bible had strayed far from the Gospel as taught by Christ after so many years passed since the apostles deaths.

If God exists, he's shown to have a pretty hands off approach when it comes to us. Only providing correction directly in a few cases. I think it's more likely than not that the Bible is just a compilation of well meaning individuals, and some non well meaning, trying to come up with a formula for what's canon and what's not. Could there have been inspiration? Maybe, but then again, Solomon's Song was included so...

Those are some big assumptions, not to mention arbitrary challenges. Whatever stretches you say you're making are on top of those deliberate assumptions

"If God exists, he's shown..."
for example, is no less arbitrary than anything I say is my opinion. You're presupposing non-belief, yet making a scenario in which you presuppose belief

@RoadtoDawn RuRu was offering a hypothetical where God definitively does exist. Hence why I said "If God exists, he's shown" I wasn't presupposing he didn't exist, I was saying in the hypothetical that he definitively did exist.

Yeah, but it's only arbitrary. Whether or not you want to make a convincing case, it's odd to try to put that into an argument. You are rationalizing something that you don't believe can be demonstrated to begin with. It doesn't quite pass the sniff test

Was going to make an example with sodas, but it ended up being too silly

I'm pretty sure you can make an argument from a hypothetical scenario without it being arbitrary.

I can believe that IF God exists, that his approach towards humanity is hands off without believing God himself exists.

Since the point I'm making isn't about whether or not God exists, it is irrelivent to my argument since we're under the assumption he does exist.

It is arbitrary because you don't have any support for it, you have only provided an opinion, is my point. You're reading into history through your own perspective, and offering what you think God did or didn't do

Okay but that doesn't make my point arbitrary. That makes it unsubstantiated.

How about the fact that we've gone over 1.5 thousand years without any word from God? No new prophets, no new divine revelation, no new scripture.

Even within your hypothetical, you still have to use your own knowledge and experiences, which are loaded with bias towards the opposite. You aren't going to make a convincing case that way

And the fact that there are large gaps in time where prophets haven't communed with God in OT times.

Well number 1, there is still revelation that has happened, it's part of church tradition. Number 2, ask God not me lol

Believing God's involvement in guiding humanity is minimal isn't an arbitrary position.

What revelation is that pray tell?

For what? A debate? I'm not trying to convince you of anything

Has God appeared to any man like he has with Christ, Moses, Abraham, Jesus, the apostles?

I'm providing you the substantiation to my claim.

A lot, but I'd say not nearly all revelation is kept with church tradition. We are taught about it all the time. You don't hear it because I assume you don't attend