The Instigator
jrardin12
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
logicae
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

All Religions (From Catholicism to Buddhism) either Change the Bible or are Iliogical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 850 times Debate No: 119132
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

jrardin12

Pro

Only true Christianity is logical. All other religions either Change the Bible to conform it to their religion, Or they copy and paste from the Bible or they are illogical.
logicae

Con

Hello Jrardin12!

I am elated that we can debate such an important topic as Christianity, As I'm sure we can both agree there are numerous misconceptions that are placed upon it.

However, And where this debate starts, You assert that you know of a true Christianity and decidedly denounce all other religions/takes on Christianity in place of this form of Christianity.

I just have a few questions for you that I hope we can clear up to make this a fantastic debate!

(1. ) What form of Christianity are you defending? This is very important as there are tens of thousands of different sectors of Christianity, All with different takes on the bible.

(2. ) Why is your denomination true? What grants you more authority/merit than the other?

(3. ) Why do you think the other denominations are false/copy and paste from the bible?
a. By which church was the bible originated from and what version is true by what authority?
b. Is the bible the sole authority of Christianity?

I am hopeful that you answer these questions so that I can truly understand your position.
I will take your response as the start to the debate and I will present my side accordingly.

Happy debating Christian brother!
Debate Round No. 1
jrardin12

Pro

1. What form of Christianity are you defending?

I believe in the biblical Christianity there should be. The one found in the Bible. Here is a basic introduction to the teachings of biblical Christianity. I will make it very brief for the sake of space, But each one has verses and deeper explanations.

1. Who is God, And how is He active in the world? God is one God existing eternally in the three persons of the Trinity. In His essence, God is the Lord, A being of infinite love and righteousness. He created all things visible and invisible. He provides for and controls all things.
2. Who are we, And where do we come from? God created the first man out of the earth. God made mankind, Male and female, In His image for His glory, But we fell into sin and misery when the first man, Adam, Disobeyed God's commandment. Yet God gave Adam and Eve a promise of grace, The first of many promises contained in the Bible.
3. What is the Bible, And how is it different from other books? The Bible, Which consists of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, Is the written Word of God. Since God is God and cannot lie, The Bible is true in all that it teaches, And it functions as our supreme authority. It teaches all the essentials, What we must believe about God, And what God requires from us as His creatures. The basic message of the Bible is clear, And the central message that runs throughout the book is Jesus Christ.
4. Who is Jesus, And what did He accomplish? Christ is the only mediator of the covenant of grace between God and the people given to Him by God. In particular, Christ serves as the prophet, Priest, And King of His people. The Old Testament points to Christ through promises, Appearances and types. The New Testament tells us how God's Sin was born of a virgin, Grew to an adult man, Preached to Israel, And worked miracles. He lived a perfect life of obedience and died for sinners to satisfy God's justice. Christ rose from the dead as the living Savior. He ascended into heaven, Sat down at God's right hand, And poured out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
5. What is Christ doing now by the Holy Spirit? He convicts sinners of their sin, And causes people to be born again into a new life of faith and repentance. God unites people to Christ by the Spirit, And justifies sinners by faith in Christ alone. The Holy Spirit also makes people holy so that they do works of love. The Spirit gives believers the privileges of the children of God, Including an assurance of God's fatherly acceptance, A heart to pray to the Father, And the power to serve Him so that He is glorified in the Church.
6. What is the Church of Jesus Christ? The Church is a people united to Christ. It is one body with many diverse members. It is organized into local churches in which Christians are members under the rule and care of Christ's appointed pastors. God commands His Church to keep His moral Law, Which Christ summarized as love for God and man, And to submit to the authority and laws of civil government. However, In obeying God the Church is blessed by Christ with true spiritual freedom as children of their Father. God calls the Church to public worship, To baptism as a sign of union with Christ, And to partake of the Lord's Supper as a sign of oneness with Christ. Christ commissioned the Church to preach the gospel to all nations, Calling sinners to come to Christ and become part of His Kingdom.
7. How will Christ bring His Kingdom to earth in glory? Jesus Christ will come again to earth in visible majesty and power. He will raise the dead, And judge all of us according to our works as signs of what we truly are. Christ will damn the wicked to suffer in hell forever, But He will bless the righteous to enjoy God's love forever.

Because I ran out of time I will talk about some supposedly Christian religions and cults that are not based on the Bible. Namely the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Jehovahs Witesses and Mormonism.
logicae

Con

Thanks for your thorough response, Also I love that you added in numbered points for clarity!

To your first response, I still have yet to see what denomination of Christianity you are defending, For the sake of this debate I will assume you are defending the Baptist tradition as it is listed on your profile.

To the others:

1. -Agree, I find all of these things common in all Christian denominations
2. -Agree (group both as same response)

3. -Agree, But with three deviations/ questions
a. What makes this written record the word of God and (important) by whose authority? (referring to my original question)

b. God is God, But the bible wasn't written by God but by humans (who can lie). I would agree that God in this case worked through humans by means of an authoritative Church to produce the Bible in truth, But in the same way God also works through people by word of mouth or oral teaching. I would add that the bible hasn't always existed. In the early church Christians had to learn their faith via oral teaching, The bible came as a complement to this teaching later on.

c. You state that the bible is the supreme authority of Christianity, My question is how do you know this and assuming that it is true, Where is this found in the bible. This idea that the Bible is the sole authority is commonly referred to as "Sola Scriptura" and is a recent ideal brought by Protestantism 1500 years after Christ"s established Church, When the printing press began and the bible was mass produced.

4. -Christ is the only mediator? I would agree that Christ mediates, But through his Church. If your stance is that Christ"s Church has no purpose, Then that would make all Christian churches illogical and unnecessary, But of course this is absurd. Christ isn"t here to personally mediate for you, But he did leave behind a church to act as mediation for people. The question is what Church?

5. -I agree to born again, But by the Biblically Christian way: Baptism. Throughout scripture we see references to baptism, For example: In Acts 22, 16 we see this clearly referenced; "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, Be baptized and wash your sins away, Calling on his name. " Baptism is the washing of one"s sins and starting anew to indeed be "born again. "

6. -I think it is important that I point out an important contradiction in this point. You state the "Church" to be many churches. The problem with this is that it contradicts your position that some denominations are illogical/false and are therefore not part of Christianity. This definition of "Church" simply ignores the significant inconsistencies with the thousands of ideologically separate Christian churches and asserts all of them to be true, But simply, And I think you can agree with me here, Not all of them can be right. In other words there has to be one solid truth, Christ"s one true Church that he established with his exact teachings.

7. -Agree

After these points you have to wonder what is the true Church? Who does have the authority to declare the bible the word of God? Also who can authoritatively interpret scripture, As Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:20 states: "know this first of all, That there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation" There has to be an authority to clear up this mess. To answer this I now put forth my case for Christ"s true Church.

In order for any denomination to be considered true, They have to contain 4 specific requirements:

1. Be One church (As explained earlier)
2. This church must be a source of holiness (self explanatory)
3. Have Apostolic origin to Christ himself (The very teachings of Christ were best observed and kept by the Apostles his followers, It is important that the Church is traced back to them and their successors that they taught as to preserve the true teachings of Christ. )
4. Be a universal church (As Christ would want, This church needs to be found throughout the world and be working to incorporate all)

The only church to observe all four of these marks is the Catholic Church:

1. -It is one unified Church lead by the Pope
2. -It brings in grace via the sacraments and has observed saints throughout its history
3. -The head, The Pope, Is traced back to St. Peter who was appointed head of the Church by Christ himself.
4. -Found throughout the world, It contains now 1. 4 billion members worldwide (see citation below)

2000 years ago, The Catholic Church began when Christ founded it with his appointed head St. Peter. This fact is clearly stated in scriptures (Matthew 16:18-19): "And I tell you, You are Peter, And on this rock I will build my church, And the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, And whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, And whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. "

Back in the time of Christ, Monarchies were the norm and as commonly understood the "keys" to a kingdom referred to the power granted by the king to his appointed steward to look after his kingdom. In this case, Jesus gives Peter the "Keys" to his kingdom, Meaning Peter is now the head of Christ"s church. 2000 years later these "Keys" have been handed down uninterrupted throughout the Church"s history until the current Pope of the status quo. (266 total, See citation below)

The need for a head authority figure such as the Pope even follows logically, As in any organization there needs to be a final authority figure to halt ambiguity and make the organization run smoothly. Christ"s Church is no different.

Here is what this means:

1. Authority to the Bible. Now we have found the authority that christened together the Bible commonly called the "Canon of Scripture" and authoritatively declared it the written word of God in the 5th century.
2. Not illogical. The Catholic Church is indeed not illogical, But the complete truth, As all of its teachings were observed by the early Christians (Catholics).
3. Clears ambiguity. The reason that there are so many different denominations is the rejection of the "Keys" authority granted by Christ to the Pope and consequently thousands of breakaways declaring themselves to be their own "Pope". The Baptist Tradition for example was founded in Amsterdam in 1609 by John Smyth.

It is because the most illogical thing is the rejection of true Christianity, The Catholic Church, That I stand opposed.

Citation:

(Number of Catholics)
http://www. Asianews. It/news-en/Worldwide-number-of-Catholics-grows-to-1. 4-billion--44154. Html

(Order of Popes)
http://www. Newadvent. Org/cathen/12272b. Htm
Debate Round No. 2
jrardin12

Pro

jrardin12 forfeited this round.
logicae

Con

Arguments continued to the next round.
Debate Round No. 3
jrardin12

Pro

First I want to make clear I am defending biblical Christianity not the Baptist denomination, Because not all Baptists stick to the Bible either.

Here are the Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church That Are Contrary to Scripture. I know I will answer most of your questions and hopefully all of them.

The Supreme Authority in the Church
The New Testament Apostles established only two offices in the local churches: elders and deacons. A comparison of the relevant passages shows that the term "elder", And "overseer" all refer to the same position of leadership. The Apostles gave no instructions for the higher levels of leadership over multiple churches or over all churches in a large city or over the world. The New Testament indicates that the 1st century local churches were to be independent congregations under the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Word of God.
In contrast, As can be seen in the historical developments of the spread of Christianity in Western Europe, Some bishops began to claim authority over more than one congregation, Then over a city, And then over the worldwide church, And along the way cardinals, Archbishops, And patriarchs were added to provide leadership under the absolute monarchy of the papacy.
The Catholic Church claims that the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra; when he speaks as the supreme teacher of the church he is incapable of teaching any false doctrine. . Likewise, The bishops do not and cannot err when they teach religious and moral doctrines. This Magisterium is endowed "with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. " And, It is claimed, God has given this Magisterium the task of providing the correct interpretation of the Scriptures for the rest of the church.
How does the Magisterium accomplish this task of interpreting Scripture without error? First, It includes in the Catholic version of the Scriptures the apocryphal books, Which are not accepted as the Word of God by either the Jews or Protestants. But in those books, The popes and bishops find justification for some Roman Catholic doctrines, Such as praying to the dead. Second, The Catholic Church equates unwritten "Tradition" with written Scripture. She "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence. "
This is because "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God. " In Roman Catholic doctrine, "Tradition" is the Church's "doctrine, Life, And worship. " It is "a current of life and truth coming from God to Christ and through the apostles to the last of the faithful who repeats his creed and learns his catechism. " And "Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, For the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word. "
So the Catholic Church leadership relies heavily on man-made ideas and practices accumulated over the centuries as the basis for their interpretation of the Word of God.
The pope also claims his authority by asserting that he inherited it from Peter who, According to official Catholic doctrine, Was the bishop of Rome and the first pope over the worldwide church. "The Roman Pontiff, By reason of his reason as Vicar of Christ, And as pastor of the entire Church has full, Supreme, And universal power over the whole Church a power which he can always exercise unhindered. "
But nowhere does the New Testament make either of those papal claims (infallibility and authority), Nor does it teach the infallible authority of the bishops or describe any kind of magisterium. In fact, The Bible never says Peter was in Rome (though we know from church history that he was martyred there) which is strange if he was the head of the church in Rome. And if he was the bishop of Rome, It is equally strange that when Paul wrote his letter to the church in Rome in about A. D. 57, He greeted many believers by name (Romans 16), But does not mention Peter. How could Paul overlook greeting the bishop, Especially since his letter was giving very authoritative teaching to the Church there? Furthermore, Paul says that the Christian Church was built on the Foundation of the Apostles (plural) and prophets, With Jesus as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:19-20).
It is also significant that in Peter's two letters written to all Christians in Asia Minor he describes himself as an Apostle and bond-servant of Jesus Christ (1 Pt 1:1; 2 Pt 1:1), Not as bishop of Rome. In Peter's first letter he humbly exhorts elders of the various churches as "a fellow elder, " not as a supreme leader in authority over them and says they should not "lord over" the Christians that they shepherd in their flocks under the authority of the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ (1 Pt 5:1-4). In 2 Pt 3:2, He admonishes his readers to follow the commandments of Jesus and "your apostles", Not his writings as uniquely authoritative.
It is true that Peter gave the "birthday sermon" of the Church to Jews in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. But it was the Apostles who led the Church there in earlier years and there is no biblical evidence that Peter was the supreme leader of the Apostles then or any other time. Peter did lead the first Gentiles to faith in Christ in Caesarea, But when questioned about this by the Apostles a few days later in Jerusalem, Peter did not have supreme authority. When Philip led the first Samaritans to Christ, The Apostles in Jerusalem did not send Peter alone, But Peter and John together to confirm that the Samaritans were full members of the Church.
When Paul and Barnabas reported to the Church in Antioch about the many Gentiles coming to Christ, A dispute arose with other Jewish Christians who contended that Gentiles needed to be circumcised. The Church then sent Paul and Barnabas to the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem to resolve the matter. Peter was there and spoke, But so did Barnabas, Paul, And James. If any one had supreme authority there it was James, For it was after he spoke that "the apostles and elders with the whole church" decided to send Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch with instructions about Gentile believers. Peter had no unique authority in this situation.
Three years after Paul's conversion he went to Jerusalem and met Peter and James, The Lord's half-brother. Then after 14 more years of ministry among Gentiles, Paul went to Jerusalem again with Barnabas and Titus to explain to the Church there about their ministry among the Gentiles. Paul says that God had committed him to take the gospel to the Gentiles, Just as God had committed Peter to take the gospel to the Jews, And Paul saw his apostolic authority as equal to Peter's. Paul names James, Peter, And John (in that order, Again suggesting that James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem) as ones who "seemed to be pillars" in the Church (Gal. 2:9). Those three together gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, Signifying their equal authority in the churches, But with James, Peter, And John focusing on evangelism to the Jews and Paul and Barnabas going to the Gentiles.
But some time later Paul found Peter at the church in Antioch and had to confront and rebuke Peter in front of the other Christians for his hypocrisy, Caving into peer pressure from Jewish Christians, And by his behavior undermining the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:9). This is hardly consistent with the idea that Peter was the head of the whole Church. Peter obviously responded positively to this humbling rebuke, Evidenced by his affirming statement that Paul's writings were Scripture (2 Pt. 3:16).
There is no basis in Scripture for the papal claims of infallibility and supreme authority over the worldwide Church. The claims come from a long series of men grabbing more and more power, Starting with Leo I in A. D. 440, And it has led to a massive amount of political, Moral, And theological corruption through the centuries.
Because the Catholic Church denies the supreme authority of Scripture, Through its popes and bishops, It had been able to proclaim numerous doctrines that are contrary to Scripture. Clearly, This is a case of faith in man's word over faith in God's Word.
But the Apostles made it perfectly clear in the New Testament that the primacy belongs to Jesus Christ alone and is not shared with any man. "And he is the head of the body, The church: who is the beginning, The firstborn from the dead: that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col 1:18).
The Bible is also clear that the "traditions" spoken of by the Apostles must be the same teaching in their New Testament writings, Not contradictory to it or adding to or taking away from the doctrines in those books (2 Thes. 2:15, 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2). Because of the danger of false prophets, False teachers, And false gospels (Mat. 24:4; Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Pt. 2:1-3), Scripture repeatedly proclaims its supreme authority. Believers are not to turn to the right or to the left of God's Word (Josh. 1:6-8) but walk in the ancient paths of the biblical prophets (Jer. 6:16-19; Is. 8:20). Jewish and Christian Fathers were expected to know the Scriptures and teach them to their children (Deut. 6:1-9; Eph. 6:4).
Jesus taught His followers (not just church leaders) to treat the Word of God as their daily food (Mat. 4:4), And that Scripture was the means by which God would produce holy maturity in their lives ( Jn. 17:17). His followers were to reject any man-made traditions that contradicted Scripture (Mk. 7:6-13) and to test every truth claim against Scripture (Acts 17:11) because demonic spirits would seek to lead believers astray (1Jn. 4:1). Paul also warned that men would arise in the Church speaking perverse things to draw Christians away from the truth. So he urged people to follow the Word of God (Acts 20:28-32). There is more also on salvation.
logicae

Con

Jrardin12,

I find that your post in the last round does not talk about the main issue of authority. Also it seems that you are dodging the question of what tradition or church that you defend. Is it your own? Every single church claims to be the true biblical church that Christ mentions, But all of them teach differently.

I have three main questions, And then I hope you get to refuting my arguments that I made earlier:

1. Why do you dismiss oral traditions?
2. Where in the Bible does it say to teach bible alone?
3. Where is your authority to interpretation the bible and why do you think that your interpretation is correct.
Debate Round No. 4
jrardin12

Pro

In the same way God also works through people by word of mouth or oral teaching. I would add that the bible hasn't always existed. In the early church Christians had to learn their faith via oral teaching, The bible came as a complement to this teaching later on.
I would disagree. The Bible has existed since Moses (well, The Book of Job was written about a century after the Flood before Abraham) who wrote the first 5 books of the Bible. As far as the New Testament is concerned, The oldest manuscript, Which is the Book of John, Is dated at A. D. 150 which is 50 years after John died. Also the Gospels were written at the most 40 years after the Resurrection and Paul's letters were written between 40 and 67. The book of Luke mentions that he got his information from eyewitnesses.

You state that the bible is the supreme authority of Christianity, My question is how do you know this
The apostles many times said that their words they were writing were from God and had to be obeyed. Paul and other apostles said not to base their beliefs on tradition, Such as 1 Corinthians 4:6. Paul claims divine authority for his words in other letters as well. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 says, "And we also thank God constantly for this, That when you received the word of God, Which you heard from us, You accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, The word of God, Which is at work in you believers. "

Christ is the only mediator? I would agree that Christ mediates, But through his Church. If your stance is that Christ"s Church has no purpose, Then that would make all Christian churches illogical and unnecessary, But of course this is absurd. Christ isn"t here to personally mediate for you.
Christ said he was the the only mediator by saying, "I am the way, The truth, And the life. No man comes to the Father, But by me. " Also, "I am the door: by me if any man enter in, He shall be saved, And shall go in and out, And find pasture. "
"For there is one God, And one mediator between God and men, The man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). The Church's purpose was never to mediate, You will not find it in the Bible. It's purpose is to give the gospel of Jesus and to encourage one another.

But by the Biblically Christian way: Baptism. Throughout scripture we see references to baptism, For example: In Acts 22, 16 we see this clearly referenced; "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, Be baptized and wash your sins away, Calling on his name. " Baptism is the washing of one"s sins and starting anew to indeed be "born again. "
Actually, That is the only verse in the Bible that would make it seem that you must be baptized to be saved, But before I explain the verse let me ask you some questions. I one must need be baptized for salvation, What happened to the thief on the cross? He sure wasn't able to be baptized. I notice that Jesus never mentioned the need to be baptized in His ministry. To the paralytic man He said, "Son, Thy sins be forgiven thee. " To Mary Magdalene He said, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. " Here are other verses showing salvation by faith alone: John 3:16; Romans 1:16; Romans 5:1, 2; Ephesians 2:8. Also, Before the Ethiopian Eunuch could get baptized he had to accept Jesus as his Savior.
So does Acts 22:16 teach that baptism is necessary for salvation? " As with any single verse or passage, We discern what it teaches by first filtering it through what we know the Bible teaches on the subject at hand. In the case of baptism and salvation, The Bible is clear that salvation is by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, Not by works of any kind, Including baptism (Ephesians 2:8-9). So, Any interpretation which comes to the conclusion that baptism, Or any other act, Is necessary for salvation, Is a faulty interpretation. For more information, Please visit our webpage on "Is salvation by faith alone, Or by faith plus works? "

Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, Be baptized and wash your sins away, Calling on his name. " The first question that must be answered is "when was Paul saved? " 1. Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, But rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, Brethren, That the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, Nor was I taught it, But I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. " So, Paul heard and believed in Christ on the road to Damascus. Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17).

2. It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, He also received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18). Acts presents a transition period where God's focus turns from Israel to the Church. The events recorded in Acts are not always normative. With regard to receiving the Holy Spirit, The norm is that a person receives and is permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation.

3. The Greek aorist participle, Epikalesamenos, Translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized. " Here Paul"s calling on Christ"s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated "having called on His name" which makes more sense, As it would clearly indicate the order of the events.

4. Concerning the words, "be baptized, And wash away your sins, " because Paul was already cleansed spiritually at the time Christ appeared to him, These words must refer to the symbolism of baptism. Baptism is a picture of God"s inner work of washing away sin (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Peter 3:21).

5. It is also interesting that when Paul recounted this event again later in Acts (Acts 26:12-18), He did not mention Ananias or what Ananias said to him at all. Verse 18 again would confirm the idea that Paul received Christ as Savior on the road to Damascus since here Christ is telling Paul he will be a messenger for Him concerning forgiveness of sins for Gentiles as they have faith in Him. It would seem unlikely that Christ would commission Paul if Paul had not yet believed in Him.

In other words there has to be one solid truth, Christ"s one true Church that he established with his exact teachings.
I agree. The true church is the one who follows His Word and whose head is Christ. Christ is actually the rock, The foundation. Not Peter, Not the Pope, But Christ only. As long as you are saved by faith through the blood of Jesus and repentance of sin can you be a part of Christ's Church.

Also who can authoritatively interpret scripture, As Apostle Peter in 2 Peter 1:20 states: "know this first of all, That there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation"
Actually, 2 Peter 1:20 emphasizes the source of Old Testament prophecies, Not who has the right to interpret the Bible today.

Some Bible versions do not make this clear. The NAS, For example, Says that prophecy is not "a matter of one"s own interpretation, " and the KJV says Scripture is not "of any private interpretation. " However, Peter was not writing about how we should read or interpret God"s Word; he was writing about how God gave us His Word in the first place. In order to persuade his readers to pay attention to the gospel, Peter affirmed that his words were God"s words"just as much as the Old Testament prophecies were.

Peter"s meaning in verse 20 is further explained by the context: "We did not follow cleverly devised stories. . . But we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. . . . We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven. . . . We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable. . . . No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet"s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will" (2 Peter 1:16"21).

Notice that Peter"s main point is not how to read and understand God"s messages. Instead, He explains the authoritative origin and source of those prophecies. It was God Himself who communicated them through His chosen spokesmen. The prophets (and Peter) did not write thoughts that they cooked up out of their own minds, But they passed on truth that came directly from God. As Peter puts it, They "spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (verse 21).

Peter"s intent was to urge his readers to take his message about Jesus seriously, As he says in verse 19, "You [therefore] will do well to pay attention to [God"s message through me], As to a light shining in a dark place. " Peter"s account of Jesus was straight from God.

Since the Bible"s words express God"s thoughts, Not man"s, It is important that we respect them enough to study them and grasp what He wants us to understand as we are interpreting Scripture.

The apostles knew that they were going to be the last ones to write Scripture and they made it clear that whoever came after them and added to it or took away from it would be condemned to eternal punishment.
logicae

Con

logicae forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by logicae 3 years ago
logicae
@jrardin12

No problem, I will simply wait for your response.

- logicae
Posted by jrardin12 3 years ago
jrardin12
Sorry, I had a lot of grading to do and haven't had time to answer, And I am sorry that next time I answer it won't leave you much room. My bad.
Posted by logicae 3 years ago
logicae
@GuitarSlinger

Roger that!
Posted by logicae 3 years ago
logicae
@Retrobobobo

Agreed (though I'm not sure if it was to make it sound interesting, But rather to fit false interpretations), But why is this significant? We have to examine where it came from and who has the authority to christen together the books of the bible and declare them the word of God.

I hope my opening argument provides some clarity, As the Catholic Church put together the Bible originally.
Posted by Retrobobobo 3 years ago
Retrobobobo
I know I'm not part of the debate, But the Bible, In fact, Was changed. It wasn't always this way, It used to be more of a guideline with a few examples. But it didn't catch on fast this way, People who believed their thoughts were the word of god through their mind changed the book to better hook people into liking Christianity and join. Throughout hundreds of years, It was altered and changed, Edited to sound more interesting.
Posted by GuitarSlinger 3 years ago
GuitarSlinger
So basic questions that must first be answered:

1) Where did the Bible come from and how/when did it come into being? What is it's history?
2) Can the Bible be changed, And if so, By whom? I. E. Who has the AUTHORITY to change the Bible, Etc.
3) When has the Bible been changed, And by whom?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.