Context and Consistency

by DT 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  BurnTheShips

  It may be true that the books of the Bible were not written as a theological summary, but when they were canonized by the early Christian church that was exactly their intention. These are the books that were chosen as representative (summary) of the word of God (theos) and it was necessary for Christians beig converted/baptized to accept this "word of God".

  It can be said that the Biblical canon contains all truths necessary for salvation. However I think it would be innaccurate to speak of it containing all theological truths. The book was intended as a written deposit of the faith, but not as a self-contained, self sufficient one. The Church itself that canonized the list of books was the full deposit, and the book is an emanation from that source written by members of that body over a very long time. The book is about the revelation of God to man through history, but it is not itself the revelation.

  Some truths are directly stated in Scripture, for example, Genesis 1:1. Other truths are not stated directly in Scripture but are implied clearly by the biblical author. For example the personhood of the holy spirit is never stated, but it is implied in texts such as Acts 13:2. Some truths can be inferred from Scripture even though the biblical authors did not clearly imply them. Various biblical passages state or imply that Jesus is true God and true man, but in none does the biblical author state or imply that he had two wills. We have to figure that out by inference. A truth is sometimes alluded to or reflected in the text even though it can’t be proved from the text alone. Teachings held by hundreds of millions of Christians are not found directly in Scripture, but they are alluded to. Some truths are presupposed by Scripture. For example when Paul wrote on how to celebrate as a Church on Sundays, he did not give a detailed liturgy in those passages, it was assumed that the practice was already known by his target audience and that only an adjustment was needed. Or when James wrote about confessing our sins openly. Lastly, there may be some truths that do not exist in Scripture at all.

  These same truths, not being obvious from scripture alone were being held as true by members involved in stating what the canon consisted of those many centuries ago. So no, I do not think the intention of the canonization of Scripture was to create a summa theologica. This was left to others.

  Burn
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  It can be said that the Biblical canon contains all truths necessary for salvation.

  Sure it can be said, but that doesn't make it true.

  Some truths are directly stated in Scripture, for example, Genesis 1:1.

  Genesis 1:1 is a statement without evidence. There is no "truth" here.

  Other truths are not stated directly in Scripture but are implied clearly by the biblical author. For example the personhood of the holy spirit is never stated, but it is implied in texts such as Acts 13:2.

  It's not a small implication you infer, insofar as this refers to some people's understanding of the nature of god! Should the very nature of god be subject to mere inference or should the standards of evidence demand a statement of fact? Esp considering that such "statements of fact" concerning the Trinity theory are slim and none in the traditional 66 books of the bible. (If you think that is just my old JW past coming up, read "Misquoting Jesus" by Brad Ehrman among other books. The trinity is nothing like the slam dunk its adherants claim. It is merely a traditional theory, an interpretation based on several scrolls written by several men and pieced together by dreamers.)

  Various biblical passages state or imply that Jesus is true God and true man, but in none does the biblical author state or imply that he had two wills. We have to figure that out by inference.

  Right, but not at the same time. And two wills? This is "gobly-goo" terminology for its own sake. Trinitarian speak is funny. Even if I were never a JW, I would look at expressions like the sanctimonious sounding "he was true god and true man" and ask you for a drug test. Do you know why? YOU CAN'T PROVE IT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. Yet you are so ready to accept this premise with no evidence whatsoever.

  These same truths, not being obvious from scripture alone were being held as true by members involved in stating what the canon consisted of those many centuries ago. So no, I do not think the intention of the canonization of Scripture was to create a summa theologica. This was left to others.

  I would strongly argue that non obvious truth's are not likely to be truths at all, and should be approached with high suspicion. Why? It is scripture coupled with speculation. This is not truth at all.

  This tread was started with the idea of the lack of consistency that the bible brings to the table. Your arguements burn have actually demonstrated the inconsistency of these scriptures. Thanks!
• 

  cognizant dissident

  Ahh you beat me to it ATJ

  It just goes to show you that what is "true" is often whatever one wants to be true and what is accepted as true is whatever the majority say is true.

  BTS:

  The book of revelation itself says that it is a direct revelation from God and that anyone adding to it or taking away from it is cursed. If that's not an attempt at summation, I don't what it is. I think your argument is semantics. I concede that Revelation does beg for further interpretation and explanation though; without it, it has the the context and consistency of a bizarre dream recorded by a madman with a religious fixation (as do many of the "prophetic" books of the Bible). Of course, there are many humans willing to step up to the plate, ignore the curse as inapplicable to themselves, an arrogantly attempt to provide further explanation and summation in a vain attempt to supply the consistency so lacking in the original text. They were known as the early Church fathers. Still doesn't make any of it consistent or true!

  Cog