What would it take?

[vulcanlogician]

Well, yes and no. I believe the letters from Paul to be Inspired, and great spiritual meaning can be gained from them, but the red letters are directly from Jesus, so they are of a higher priority.

Are "inspired" writings authoritative? I personally think one can gain great "spiritual meaning" from reading Walt Whitman. Specifically on their authority, how important do you regard Paul's epistles? Just curious.

[Godscreated]

Jesus said that no one but the Father knows the day and hour not even the Son. All the verses that were posted have to be held to this one positive statement. A statement that is short and simple with no room for contradiction.

Not knowing the hour does not mean that the hour cannot be "imminent". So if it was so "imminent" why didn't it happen?

You're making a statement to a statement that was not implied. I know what Jesus said wouldn't eliminate the hour of being imminent, the fact that it hasn't yet come shows it wasn't imminent. Before you quote the verse where Jesus says that this generation will not pass away is referring to the church not the end of time. If you do not study all the NT and find out what Jesus was referring to in the other verses then you will have no idea of what He is teaching. Repeating what you hear or what you find on the web that's written by nonbelievers doesn't count as a study nor does it prove anything since these very people are out to do one thing, only disprove the Bible. 

There are some prophecies that are being fulfilled at this time and the time remaining is short.

Yes, I've read Timothy Dailey's "Apocalypse Rising". The prophecies are not being fulfilled. All he has done and all others do is take obscure passages from the bible and interprets them to fit the events occurring today. One could have done that in the year 1,000 CE and still found events that match the biblical passages. And still he has not returned.

 No there are things happening today that didn't and couldn't happen in that time. I haven't read that book and I do not need to I have the Bible to get all the information I need to understand. You're right He hasn't come, but it will be sooner than many think and later than others think. The time for this to happen belongs to the Father and it will not happen till that time.

You have asked a question that has only one answer for those who would live in those times and it would be yes. No need to worry about it, this world will not be here then. There is another verse that says the generation in which Christ will return will know He is coming, they will not know the day or the hour, they will know it will be soon. Those who have predicted the day of His return have gone against what the Bible teaches, I'm assuming they are glory hounds seeking attention because they can't get it any other way.

GC

So, yes, you would give up being a xtian if he has not returned in the year 10,000 CE? What's your tolerance limit? 100,000 CE?

Like I said that would be a question for those that were living in that time and I've said that that time will never come. I have never nor will I ever question that the return of Christ will happen and as I've said it will when the Father tells Christ it is time to return.

GC

[JairCrawford]

Well, yes and no. I believe the letters from Paul to be Inspired, and great spiritual meaning can be gained from them, but the red letters are directly from Jesus, so they are of a higher priority.

Are "inspired" writings authoritative? I personally think one can gain great "spiritual meaning" from reading Walt Whitman. Specifically on their authority, how important do you regard Paul's epistles? Just curious.

Good question. And the best simple answer I can give is, it's sorta in between. Paul was an apostle, which means he had authority as an apostle in his area of influence. (On a side note I am of the persuasion that we still have Apostolic fathers operating today. It's  what some people call the New Apostolic Reformation. It's associated with revivalists groups and miracles and the prophetic). So Paul did have spiritual authority, but he was also still a mortal man.

So from a spiritual perspective, his writings are very important because it was revealed to him and the apostles how the gifts of the Spirit work. He also had a vast understanding of Grace from his experience on Damascus road. Also very important understandings. But we can also see him fall to the cultural regulations of the time as well, for instance when he orders women to be silent in the church in his letters. Jesus never taught any women to be silent over men regardless of the culture.

In conclusion, I believe Paul's writings are included in the canon rightfully so because he received so much useful insight on spiritual matters. But you can also tell from his writings that he's still a man, and not perfect.

[Minimalist]

Just out of curiosity, do you put more credence in the red letters than elsewhere in the NT?

Do you consider letters that were written by Paul to various churches to be the Word of God?

It just seems that the red letters alone ought to be considered so, if anything; it is a stretch to throw a bunch of letters from Paul into "the Word of God." Those are the words of Paul, aren't they? Is Paul God?

Well, yes and no. I believe the letters from Paul to be Inspired, and great spiritual meaning can be gained from them, but the red letters are directly from Jesus, so they are of a higher priority.

And yet, over a century after this "paul" guy supposedly wrote them we have an extensive work of a xtian writer, Justin, written to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 AD and guess what?  He doesn't seem to know jack-shit about this "paul" guy.  Never mentions him.   Although he does know about the alleged arch-heretic Marcion.  Oddly, xtian writers like Tertullian tell us that it was Marcion who was the first to produce a canon of alleged scripture which included 10 of these pauline epistles and the so-called "Gospel of the Lord" which turns out to be a large chuck of "Luke."

Odd, eh?

[JairCrawford]

Well, yes and no. I believe the letters from Paul to be Inspired, and great spiritual meaning can be gained from them, but the red letters are directly from Jesus, so they are of a higher priority.

And yet, over a century after this "paul" guy supposedly wrote them we have an extensive work of a xtian writer, Justin, written to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 AD and guess what?  He doesn't seem to know jack-shit about this "paul" guy.  Never mentions him.   Although he does know about the alleged arch-heretic Marcion.  Oddly, xtian writers like Tertullian tell us that it was Marcion who was the first to produce a canon of alleged scripture which included 10 of these pauline epistles and the so-called "Gospel of the Lord" which turns out to be a large chuck of "Luke."

Odd, eh?

Justin was clearly more focused on the Gospel than the Pauline epistles. We can't say for sure whether he ignored them or didn't know them.

As for Marcion, that doesn't surprise me. He developed conflicting views from the Pauline perspective but it doesn't surprise me that he could have canonized the gospels early on.

[vulcanlogician]

Justin was clearly more focused on the Gospel than the Pauline epistles. We can't say for sure whether he ignored them or didn't know them.

As for Marcion, that doesn't surprise me. He developed conflicting views from the Pauline perspective but it doesn't surprise me that he could have canonized the gospels early on.

This is one of the reasons I refuse to live according to a thousands-year-old document. What it says depends largely on which part is emphasized over others. It can spur people to charity. It can justify murder. Beyond that, the Bible is what it is because of its history; people in the Holy Roman Empire, the fathers of the Byzantine empire... these guys had political motivations to organize the canon in a certain way.

And even Paul... so many people read his words like they are flawless orchestrations of the truth. He was a guy with issues like anyone else. He put some inspiring poetics into the epistles, but they were there to serve a practical purpose; they were communiques to his various parishes. Its quite possible that if he would not want them included in the canon if he had any say in the matter (which he didn't).

Anyway, in light of its history and what is contained within its pages, I have a hard time accepting the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Your tradition presumably does, (or does it?) How do you feel about biblical inerrancy? Can you see why someone may doubt it? Doesn't it seem reasonable to doubt that the bible is perfect?

[The Valkyrie]

After all, Jesus was crucified TWICE for their sins. Sez so in the Holy Bible, so it's gotta be true !!

I've always been partial to the phrase "Jesus gave up his long weekend for your sins".

[Bow Before Zeus]

Not knowing the hour does not mean that the hour cannot be "imminent". So if it was so "imminent" why didn't it happen?

You're making a statement to a statement that was not implied. I know what Jesus said wouldn't eliminate the hour of being imminent, the fact that it hasn't yet come shows it wasn't imminent. Before you quote the verse where Jesus says that this generation will not pass away is referring to the church not the end of time. If you do not study all the NT and find out what Jesus was referring to in the other verses then you will have no idea of what He is teaching. Repeating what you hear or what you find on the web that's written by nonbelievers doesn't count as a study nor does it prove anything since these very people are out to do one thing, only disprove the Bible. 

What you are doing is reinterpreting the bible to suit the facts. Of course you must necessarily do that otherwise the bible has no meaning. I prefer Occam's razor. The bible has no meaning. I do not need to repeat what others have said. I have read the NT no less than 3 times. I still could not find the coherence, consistency and meaning that I was looking for.

There are some prophecies that are being fulfilled at this time and the time remaining is short.

Yes, I've read Timothy Dailey's "Apocalypse Rising". The prophecies are not being fulfilled. All he has done and all others do is take obscure passages from the bible and interprets them to fit the events occurring today. One could have done that in the year 1,000 CE and still found events that match the biblical passages. And still he has not returned.

 No there are things happening today that didn't and couldn't happen in that time. I haven't read that book and I do not need to I have the Bible to get all the information I need to understand. You're right He hasn't come, but it will be sooner than many think and later than others think. The time for this to happen belongs to the Father and it will not happen till that time.

You have asked a question that has only one answer for those who would live in those times and it would be yes. No need to worry about it, this world will not be here then. There is another verse that says the generation in which Christ will return will know He is coming, they will not know the day or the hour, they will know it will be soon. Those who have predicted the day of His return have gone against what the Bible teaches, I'm assuming they are glory hounds seeking attention because they can't get it any other way.

GC

So, yes, you would give up being a xtian if he has not returned in the year 10,000 CE? What's your tolerance limit? 100,000 CE?

Like I said that would be a question for those that were living in that time and I've said that that time will never come. I have never nor will I ever question that the return of Christ will happen and as I've said it will when the Father tells Christ it is time to return.

GC

A thought experiment is rather simple actually. All you have to do is close your eyes, imaging that it is the year 100,000 and Christ has not returned. How do you feel about that? How do you feel about your religion? Why has he not returned? Time to give it all up???

[Minimalist]

And yet, over a century after this "paul" guy supposedly wrote them we have an extensive work of a xtian writer, Justin, written to Emperor Antoninus Pius c 160 AD and guess what?  He doesn't seem to know jack-shit about this "paul" guy.  Never mentions him.   Although he does know about the alleged arch-heretic Marcion.  Oddly, xtian writers like Tertullian tell us that it was Marcion who was the first to produce a canon of alleged scripture which included 10 of these pauline epistles and the so-called "Gospel of the Lord" which turns out to be a large chuck of "Luke."

Odd, eh?

Justin was clearly more focused on the Gospel than the Pauline epistles. We can't say for sure whether he ignored them or didn't know them.

As for Marcion, that doesn't surprise me. He developed conflicting views from the Pauline perspective but it doesn't surprise me that he could have canonized the gospels early on.

Yeah, sure.  I suppose someone could have written a History of the American Revolution in 1876 without once mentioning George Washington, too?  The question is WHY would they do it.

I'll give you a better reason.  That paul bullshit had not yet been re-edited into something the proto-orthodox could live with.  Once "paul" had been rehabilitated they started pushing him out there as part of their propaganda effort.  Not so oddly the earliest pauline manuscript we have is dated to the late 2d - mid 3d century.  Just about what one would expect.

Along those same lines Justin never heard of any of the gospel writers, either.  Clearly those names had not been attached by 160.

[Neo-Scholastic]

More than 90% of your fellow Christians disagree with that. You're just an exception. The problem is that it isn't so clear when one should read it plainly or dig deeper for meaning.

I'd put it at more like 30% by official denomination doctrine (Southern Baptists, Evangelicals, etc.) and a little less by personal conviction. I think many individual Christians are more likely take prophecies with a grain of salt, kind of like JairCrowford, relying on the "no one knows...not even the Son of Man", etc. It's sometimes a bit of a cop-out.

Being in my early 50's, I remember the adults rounding us up to show us the movie "A Thief in the Night" and other scary bible stories. That was all before the "Left Behind" series. Back then everyone was all worked up about "The Late, Great Planet Earth." That's the thing about Evangelicals, they're always jumping on the latest trends. You'd think by now they'd have figured out that there's a whole publishing (and music) industry geared to exploiting Christian audiences. But I can't say I blame them. It's a lot easier to pop in a DVD of "God's Not Dead" than reading "The Cloud of Unknowing."

Would you agree, Neo, that one who reads the bible as if it were an authority, yet misunderstands it, is obedient to the wrong authority? If this is the case, you ought to have as many problems with Christianity as anti-theists do.

Yes and no. I personally believe Scripture operates on several levels. There's quite a bit of value in a plain reading. Life lessons, like don't stand on the roof peeping at bathing princesses, words of comfort and hope in the Psalms, and everyday guides from Proverbs, etc. I enjoy the symbols and allusions - particularly from a Swendorgian perspective. Personally, it seems obvious to me that some books and passages are clearly meant to be read poetically, like Job, or symbolically like Revelation. Genesis is kind of a special case. IMHO as long as people don't use it as a science book, their generally safe. Likewise for the NT, it's safe to read it like its contemporary literature, such as Plutarch's Lives.

Personally, I consider the Bible authoritative. I would say that a misinterpretation is more like misunderstanding the directions your boss gives you at work. Maybe you didn't get it exactly right, as long as you have a good working relationship with him and are trying to do what's best for the company, you should be fine. People that use the Bible to justify their own agendas are going to be in very hot water (literally).

Yes, it reads a lot like a strange work of fiction.

I'll grant you that.