Okay, I can't get through to you and I know you feel the same toward me. I can think of other arguments to make my point, but I think we'll just end up aggravating the crap out of each other and all of this has very little to do with the thread anyway. But here's the deal that hopefully will make you happy: I will no longer state categorically that from 1975 to 2000 Christianity experienced explosive growth as a whole but only in the Southern Hemisphere since I can't prove my point but can only draw it inferentially. But I'm not backing off from the assertion that there will likely be 600 million new Christians on planet earth in approximately the next 25 years. You can call that low growth, medium growth - whatever you want....
it's the sola scriptura problem. nowhere in the canon does the canon define itself - the list of books to be included in scripture is itself extra-scriptural. scripture cannot even be defined without giving at least one "piece" of extra-scriptural material even *more* importance than is given scripture. further, reading a translation by definition mandates the primacy of non-scriptural material over scriptural material. your requirement #3... ...means either everybody or nobody meets your standard.
Laborious enough thanks - simply confirming the meanings of words with you. No need to put yourself out any further. I did not suggest two groups have not or could not end up in completely different places . So why bring it up? I wouldn't bet on shoe agreeing with anything, including what he says himself. God the creator of heaven and earth. the jewish conception of g_d or whatever you call it, is NOT of the old testament ..is not the creator of heaven and earth??? I think you might find that is news to a lot of jewish people. But ok, say the perception is TOTALLY different. My point is you would have to have NO perception of a deity whatsoever and which you did not attribute any devotion to whatsoever...but wouldn't you be in the area of the atheist if that were the case?? ..please continue... You share a common original core deity whether you personally like the idea or not, it's an historical fact. You may want to add your Torah/Tanakh or whatever, it doesn't change that historical fact. So now it becomes a matter of degree for you. Well ok that's some sort of progress I guess. The similarities are a common core deity from the same book, the same creator of heaven and earth. Which is it now?? You were offended that I referred to the term judeo-christian, now you say there are similarities between judaism and christianity... so do I take it you are no longer offended by the term ?!? Well fine...but that still does not change one jot, the definition of the word religionist when applied to a jew or any one else. Right so let me tidy this up a little if I can.... Are you really saying... a christian will be a religionist because..... the christian has a religion. but a Jew will not be a religionist because...the jewish person... does NOT have a religion which requires God or G_d. But I don't care about that I never said I did... it's devotion/belief of/in ONE GOD..a deity!! I referred to as being religionist If some Jews can/are religionists but Judaism is not a religion, then FINE, but just as a matter of interest.. what exactly is judaism if it is not a recognized name for the religion practiced by jews ???? Ok damir.. you make up your own rules for religions and definitions. But I think you will have a hell of a time convincing Jews who practice Judaism that they don't practice a religion based upon the old testament and the Talmud. And last time I heard Judaism was still monotheistic. Jews are religionists if they practice/support/proclaim monotheism. I really do not see why you feel you must insist on having a problem with this. Practicing/expressing/manifesting a devotion/devoutness/veneration to a (one) deity, whether is it called God G_d or Jesus makes the person a religionist whether practicing judaism christianity or whatever. So I confirm again It is the religionist who demands one true God, no arguments,.....stands as correct. the Bible as a sacrosanct word of God ... stands as correct for the christian apologists,, which was in context to the Christ sin thing I was directly referring to at the time Do you not feel you have sidetracked this enough yet?
Yes, I agree that there's no list of canon in the canon. This forces Christians (and Jews?) to use "common sense" arguments in their decision making. And it presents yet another choice that a "Seeker" must make I suppose - he or she has to decide about accepting all of the canon. On a practical level, I don't think that's much of an issue - at least for Christians. I have never met a Christian that questioned the canonicity of any of the New Testament or Old Testament books. But you'll have to tell me what you're getting at... As far as translations, I don't think it makes a difference on major doctrines. Yes, translation does very much matter on many underlying points, but I believe you can choose any translation and come up with the core beliefs w/o worry. And you always have the option of going (as best you can) to the Hebrew (or Greek in my case). So what I'm getting at is imo everyone can meet the standard because all translations will yield a common set of underlying beliefs. Interpretation is much more of an issue than translation...
translation IS interpretation. by definition. you've never met a catholic? that aside, there are lots of problems with your characterization. for the first 500 years of c'ianity, the biggest persecutors of c'ians where other c'ians. so while it can be argued that many modern c'ians share a common conception of what belongs in the canon, that consensus - which is actually quite weak, i'll get to that later - was only achieved by killing those who disagreed and burning a whole heck of a lot of manuscripts. the reason you can even try to claim you've "never met a c'ian that questioned..." is because for centuries the ones that did were murdered. but we can leave that aside as the concensus is surprisingly weak anyway. the biggie problem is, of course, Apocrypha. even the KJV crowd can't decide on whether or not it belongs because the early editions of KJV - a pretty bit of writing, but as politically motivated a translation as has ever been created - not only included it, but mandated sunday readings from it. others include... book of mormom - how many millions of c'ians accept it as scripture? the dozens of gospels not included by the Niceans but used by gnostic c'ians. sun yung moon's "divine principles" (yes, he is a c'ian). catholics and (of course) apocrypha. amish and "Dordrecht Confession of Faith". the modern ebionites who dismiss many NT books as irrelevant if not outright forgeries. did i mention the single largest group of christians - catholics? the list can be extended indefinetely... are you now willing to say #3 is not actually a differentiating criteria since in fact all c'ians give primacy to extra-scriptural material and the canon is not now nor never has been universally accepted? bonus question: if you do not come from jewish stock, how is it you are a c'ian when Jesus explicity taught his apostles to avoid gentiles?
luther's argument for dispensing with Apocrypha was "Jews don't include the books". Jews don't include the books based on extra-scriptural writings (generally, there are differences, the Jewish canon is in fact no universally accepted amongst Jews) . therefore any c'ian bible that luther approves of - which would not include apocrypha - is on first principles based on extra-scriptural writings. there's just no way around this. the funny thing is the largest group of c'ians on the planet - catholics - insist on including the books partly because...Jews don't. lol.
have a nice shabbat, er, weekend everyone - this "religionist" is shutting down the network and taking a full 24 hour Pause That Refreshes.
I hope you had a relaxing sabbath. You do realize you brought up about 43 issues in one post, don't you?!? I scarcely know what to respond to first, so I guess I'll start with the above. Of course, I absolutely agree that translation is interpretation. But imo this is not a major issue. (It's an important issue but not a major one.) What I mean is that I can go to any Christian bookstore and there's probably a half dozen serious translations, i.e. no paraphased versions, sold there. And each and every one would not lead to any significant doctrinal differences on core issues... That said, it's always important to keep in mind both language and context...
This is a big subject, but here's a quickie response. The first extrabiblical book Joseph Smith wrote (I believe in 1830) was the Book of Mormon. The fascinating thing about it is that the doctrine in it is quite orthodox and he heavily plagiarized whole KJV passages of Isaiah, etc. However, very shortly after he wrote it, historians have documented his involvement with freemasonry. It was at this point that his thinking and writing significantly shifted directions. The remaining books that he wrote show heavy influence in freemasonry out of which sprang his theology of polytheism, exaltation (you can be God) and the temple ceremonies (which were in part taken directly from freemasonry. Here's my point: the traditional Christian would never think of accepting the extrabiblical writings of Joseph Smith because his doctrine in their opinion contradicts the rest of the canon. Surely this is an acceptable test for canon - that it not contradict itself on major points?
This was the plan: 1. Go first to the Jews. 2. Then to the Gentiles. This is clearly presented throughout the New Testament and is in fact the plan that was followed by the early church. The Book of Acts documents this break as I'm sure you're aware. Jesus, and of course you have to accept the gospel's presentation of this, was very clear that the gospel was to go to all the nations. This could not happen unless it went to the Gentiles. My point? Jesus always had the plan for the message to go to the Gentiles even though it did not seem readily apparent or understandable to his disciples during His lifetime...