Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Hwa! I knew it. Right from your first post in this topic.

Anyhoo, for the most part I don't have much to add to this thread of discussion, but I do have one thing to say about the "legitimacy of the Bible" idea that's been thrown around. First some background.
I do believe that there was a global Apostacy. I believe that many of the plain and precious truths taught and written by the prophets and apostles were lost due to wickedness and unbelief. I also believe that there were a few people, some in positions of respect, that may have purposefully tried to deceive, in order to attact power to themselves. This is why within the 8th Article of Faith, it states that we believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly. I believe that most of it is translated correctly.

So here's my one idea. I don't know about the authority of those who compiled the Bible, but I do know that their work was still overseen by God. Every book (save the Song of Solomon) teaches truth and was inspired by God. That's a too good of a track record for people who are randomly selecting writings. I believe that there were other writings or truths which were either lost prior to that point, or afterwards. For example, Paul himself references other epistles that he wrote to the churches which we do not have. Even in the Book of Mormon, God teaches that the Bible was given by God (in it's current state!) to us today as a witness that Christ is the Resurrected Savior.

To wrap up, I believe that the Nicean counsel had some problems. There were no prophets or apostles in their midst to guide them, they had many scattered and imperfect sources to choose from, and they had to come to a consensus over many basic doctrines on which there was no consensus. The reason the Romans had made Christianity a capital offense was that they disagreed about such basic things so whole-heartedly, that they were causing uproar and dissension throughout the empire. The Nicean counsel was a last ditch effort to bring 250 leaders of various church sects together to agree on something so that the inter-denominational violence would end.

But in spite of these difficulties, they were studious and really did a great job. There are small things that we have a more refined knowledge of today, because of modern prophets and apostles, but I can't imagine people doing a better job under those circumstances.

Thomas is my real name. I chose the name Didymus because it means the same thing as Thomas (one's Greek, the other's Hebrew). Also, because the Twin seems to play such a symbolic significance in my life (I also happen to be a Gemini, although I don't really believe in astrology).

In college my nickname was Thomas Aquinas (after the medieval philosopher).

I identify with St. Thomas the Apostle because, for so many of us, faith is a real struggle. It's really easy for us to call him "The Doubter" some 2000 years after the event, but would any of us have done any better? Notice that the other disciples had the benefit of seeing Jesus the week before; but none of them believed before that (except maybe--MAYBE--Peter and John; they saw the empty tomb).

When facing dark times, it is much easier to fall into doubt and despair than we sometimes realize. And goodness knows I've been through some of those dark times myself these past few years.

Anyway, thanks for the conversation. I have to get to work now, so I'll catch you later.

The peace of Christ be with you always.

_________________

Ive also fell into dark times, and it is easy to doubt when times are bad. I think that its note worthy to mention that Thomas went on to be very valient in his testimony of Christ. He was eventually martyred for it I think.

**Racerx_is_alive** Haha, takes one to know one!

_________________

Racerx:

SIMULPOST'D!!

I didn't even see you're post until just now.

The main reason for the Council of Nicea was because there was a man named Arius who was stirring up controversy in the church. While the rest of the church believed in what I call the traditional view of the Holy Trinity, Arius was of the opinion that Jesus was not truly God. The Council was called in an effort to correct him, but he and his followers refused. They (the Arians) then began a systematic persecution of Athanasius, one of the leading members of the Council, which continued until Athanasius' death.

It is interesting, if you study the history of heresy in the Church, all the early heresies dealt with trying to understand the exact relationship between Jesus' human and divine natures. In fact, the earliest heresies had no difficulty confessing that Jesus was God; they just couldn't accept he was also human.

The heresies of the early church can be classified in two ways:
(1) those that tended to deny Jesus' humanity.
(2) those that tended to deny Jesus' divinity.

But the concensus of the church (and the teachings of Scripture) are that, in order to properly understand Jesus, we must acknowledge both natures as equal to his being. I.e., he is both 100% God and 100% human. And while this boggles the minds a bit, it is what is taught by Scripture.

But the reason Christianity was outlawed in the Empire had nothing to do with these controversies. It had to do with the fact that Christians universally refused to acknowledge the divinity of the Emperor. According to Roman custom (beginning with Nero), the citizens of the Empire were required to honor Caesar as a God. The Christians refused, acknowledging only Jesus as God. As you can imagine, the emperors didn't like that too much. They were causing uproar alright, but you might want to read Acts sometime to see exactly what that uproar looked like for the most part.

But that ended with Constantine. According to legend, he dreamt of a burning Cross, and a voice told him, "Under this sign you will conquer." He then made Christianity a legal religion, and, later, the official religion of the Empire. Scholars debate whether this was a good thing or not; many believe that the church under Constantine began on a road of apostacy; Christians, no longer challenged to stand against opposition, became lax and complacent. At least that's how some see it.

But knowing a little bit of the history of the time is very helpful here. It's not like the whole world was thrown into darkness when St. John died, you know. We have histories of that time period, and yes, we even have the writings of Christian men of that time. St. John had disciples that he taught, including Polycarp and Irenaeus, and we have the writings of these men preserved.

Now here's a tough question: why do you say the Song of Solomon doesn't teach truth?

_________________

I believe The Song of Solomon was written by Solomon. I don't dispute its authorship. However, I believe it was just written by Solomon, and not through inspiration or revelation from God.

I read somewhere that its legitimacy as scripture was debated from the times of the Scribes and the rebuilding of the temple all the way through to the Nicean Council, with one side taking the stand that it was an allegory of Christ's love for the church. The other side claimed it was a song by Solomon. I'm with the latter group.

The only thing I thinks it shows us is a glimpse into the mind of a man with 700 wives and 300 concubines.

But 2 Timothy 3:16 says: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

That's true. That's not under dispute. What is being discussed is whether or not Song of Solomon is indeed scripture, rather than one man's poetry.

hey, anything made by king solomon are scriptures. i study under the wisdom of king solomon, and how he got his powers and billience from the lord.

_________________

Since he was from the middle east, he would have probably been around 5'2", had olive skin and dark hair. But his message should be more improtant than his appearance.

Or the Nation of Islam (often known as Farrakhanism, but the NoI has been around long before Farrakhan took its lead). Malcolm X talks a lot about it in his book, since it was a huge part of his life.

Of course, the NoI uses a Qur'an, not the Bible, but you get the idea.

I don't know with certainty what color Jesus was (nobody does, after all), but there's a fair probability he was black (not everybody in Israel is going to have the same skin tone, you know), and it was almost a certainty he wasn't what we today would consider white.

- Kef