Here is a link which is a publication from Living Stream Ministry (LSM). The style is more in line with the way theologians speak and write, so it will be more precise than what I can say. I hope some some of you will take the time to read some portions. There are many topics. LSM has a volume of books answering the questions of our opposers, but I haven't found the link.
I wasn't going to respond because I felt guilty of leading the thread OT, but since it seems to be going that way anyway, what the heck 
Smokering, you would only need to show that 2 religions with apparently contradictory dogma (say, Islam and Christianity) were equally intellectually legitimate to prove that it is necessary to rely on other measures. You wouldn't have to prove that ALL religions are equally intellectually legitimate, which I agree would be a daunting task.
I do think that more than one religion is intellectually legitimate. That's why, while I don't claim that subjective measures are definitive proof (for the reasons you gave), as far as I can see they are the best we've got until we die and are no longer seeing through a glass darkly.
I'll also note that Jesus never talked about discernment through rigorous logical exegesis, but he did say in Matthew 7:
15“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
After this post, i think i get it now. I am a suspect. Am I viewed as an untrustworthy self interpreting protestant? A lot of what I believe came from the church Fathers, especially the Trinity truths, the one Body.
I don't know how to end. I guess I needed a little venting time with you. I really hope no body is bothered with me.
Probably someone will say, oh, but all world views are welcome. That's a nice thought, but I don't think so.For what it's worth coming from a non-Christian, I don't view you as suspect 
. I think that on this thread, for example, you have clearly been the person who is speaking most to what the OP was looking for when she started the thread. The rest of us just keep going OT 
We can welcome your views without agreeing with them, can't we?
After this post, i think i get it now. I am a suspect. Am I viewed as an untrustworthy self interpreting protestant? A lot of what I believe came from the church Fathers, especially the Trinity truths, the one Body.
I don't know how to end. I guess I needed a little venting time with you. I really hope no body is bothered with me.
Probably someone will say, oh, but all world views are welcome. That's a nice thought, but I don't think so.For what it's worth coming from a non-Christian, I don't view you as suspect . I think that on this thread, for example, you have clearly been the person who is speaking most to what the OP was looking for when she started the thread. The rest of us just keep going OT us
We can welcome your views without agreeing with them, can't we?
Aw, gee, thanks Thao. lol yes I don't mind being diagreed with. I think what got me was that we don't even view the Bible the same. I think I was naive and believed that Christians could agree to disagree on docrinal issues and practices, but I can't even use the Bible to show my points because the Bible isn't the authority. I had no clue that the Bible was not an authority that could stand alone. So, I don't have a leg to stand on and now I guess the view of other Christians interpreting or translating the Bible isn't accepted even if I can show it in the Bible. At least, I came away learning what other Christians believe and that will be very useful and broadening for me personally. However, I feel like some one just came and popped my balloon unexpectedly. Still processing.
Shami, I'm sorry you feel like a suspect. I'm here to learn, and I love that you're here expressing your point of view! I'm not Catholic or Orthodox (yet) but I do agree with them that individual interpretation of the Bible can and often does lead to confusion and division. Sola Scriptura does not make sense to me (I was brought up in the United Methodist church which does not teach SS).
I'm curious about the version of the Bible that you quote, the Recovery Version. Doing some brief research on it and Living Stream Ministry has been interesting, to say the least. They're a bit controversial, no?
I'd love to see a spin-off thread on the Bible, SS, and related topics, but I'm not brave enough to start one. 
I'll start one. No one ever said I shrink from controversy.
Looked upp the recovery version. Interesting - it is pretty clearly a departure from orthodox (small o) Christianity I would say. It seems to clearly repudiate the classic understanding of the Trinity.
Huh?? Bluegoat, you know where I stand with the Trinity don't you?
You consider that you hold to an understanding of the Trinity that the early church did and that is found in the Creeds, I believe?
Originally Posted by Shami
The early church quoted the OT scripture and spoke to one another about Christ and the church, right? That's a real question, not rhetorical. Even though the NT didn't exist until the 4th century the epistles and the gospels did exist and were passed around to the local churches. This is significant because the early church was having all kinds of trouble, sin, division, heresy, reverting back to the law, etc. Saying that the church produced the NT isn't really how I understand it. God breathed out and the apostles wrote it down. Maybe you mean the canonization was produced by the church.
Your example of the Ethiopian...we all need someone to explain it to us. We have the church fathers and so many Christians who have gone before us that can do that, but we needed it to be written down so that we all can read it for ourselves. Reading the Bible is like receiving nourishment from food. When I sit down with the Bible I view it as, I am sitting down at the Lord's feet to listen to Him, to be nourished and to get to know Him in an intimate way. So, yeah, I guess I view the Bible as God's direct speaking and as His very breath. Sitting down with the Bible is like sitting down with a Person. Hope that is making sense.
Do the Orthodox believe that no one else can interpret the Bible? And the RCC and Anglican? If that is the case then Protestants interpreting the Bible are considered as what? sinning or rebels or heretics? I won't be offended if you tell me the truth. I didn't know it was so wrong for anyone outside the Orthodox to interpret. Does this mean we cannot have fellowship? or that you can't receive things that I have experienced with the Lord?
I'm going to be honest here. I have been on this forum for a while. I've gotten to know some of you and your backgrounds. I am not a theologian or a philosopher. I just went to a two year Bible training school. I have always felt like I don't fit in here or that what I say is looked upon with a suspicion. I know that a conservative Protestant is very different than the RCC, Orthodox and Anglican, but I thought that we had enough in common to have some fellowship. After a while I realized that this is a debate forum and not a fellowship forum. But I thought that Christians (all believers) could enjoy each others points of view and learn from each other. I spend more time defending the things that I say than real fellowship. I tried staying over on the spirituality board, but the deeper things aren't really expressed there much. So, I keep coming back here, but always feeling like a suspect.
After this post, i think i get it now. I am a suspect. Am I viewed as an untrustworthy self interpreting protestant? A lot of what I believe came from the church Fathers, especially the Trinity truths, the one Body.
I don't know how to end. I guess I needed a little venting time with you. I really hope no body is bothered with me.
Probably someone will say, oh, but all world views are welcome. That's a nice thought, but I don't think so.
I am not sure what you mean by a suspect. We belong to different religions, that is all. You "suspect" my beliefs as much as I "suspect" yours, but it is not a personal judgment. The Protestant view of the church and church membership as a kind of family, which maintains loving bonds in spite of differing opinions, makes it seem like a deliberate insult if another faith says these bonds do not really exist, that you are not my blood relative but only my friend. It is not intended as an insult or a slight. We have a very specific definition of what the Church is, and who is or is not a member of the Church, and it does not depend on individual piety, morality, or knowledge of Scripture. If it did, I could not be a member. I hope you can try to see it in that light.
Even the term "heretic," which has taken on the flavour of a severe insult in modern times, is used in my church only as a literal description of inaccurate doctrine. A parish member might ask his priest, "Such-and-such is an Orthodox teaching, isn't it?" and be told, "Nope, that's a heresy." He would not be offended; he would only say, "Oops!" and move on.
The early Church did circulate books of what is now the NT, along with other writings which were not included in NT canon. It is unlikely that any one local church had access to all of them at once. They were taught about Christ first by the apostles, then by followers and students of the apostles. Most of what the early Christians knew, was taught to them orally. As St. Paul wrote, "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
These really are huge differences. Maybe we can cover them more thoroughly in the follow up thread, rather than continue to hijack this one.
True. Although they'd have to be the top two, wouldn't they? I mean, it wouldn't do much good to show that religions X and Y tied for twenty-ninth place in intellectual legitimacy. :p So you'd still, in theory, have to examine every religion in some depth. Unless you came up with a logical argument that made one distinctive feature of a religion necessary for viability, in which case it would be easy to dismiss those which did not possess it in one fell swoop. I know there are some philosophers who claim that a God who is both one and many (not necessarily a trinity, but something of that sort) is necessary for some reason; but I'm not familiar enough with the argument to know if it's right. But that sort of thing could be useful.
I do think that more than one religion is intellectually legitimate. That's why, while I don't claim that subjective measures are definitive proof (for the reasons you gave), as far as I can see they are the best we've got until we die and are no longer seeing through a glass darkly.
I'll also note that Jesus never talked about discernment through rigorous logical exegesis, but he did say in Matthew 7:
15“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Jesus wasn't talking about people of different religions, though. He was comparing people who pretended to be of the true religion with those who actually were. Not Muslims vs Jews or whatever. Jesus certainly didn't proclaim that everyone who did good works was saved, regardless of doctrine. And if you believe the Pauline writings were inspired by God (which I do), there are plenty of examples of rigorous logic used to determine good doctrine from bad.
I don't really understand solo scriptura because I accept what others' interpretations are as long as I see it in the word, or at least I can see how they came to that point. Maybe it means that I don't accept a lot of the rcc practices or Tradition because I don't see it in the word? Does that mean I am solo scriptura? In past posts I may have asked, where is that in the Bible and I either get it's Tradition or no answer at all and then I feel like I've put a barrier up. The barrier of show me in the Bible or I can't accept it as true. I'm guilty of being suspicious of things that I don't see in the Bible. I can't stand that it has come to this among God's people. Suspicion. What an evil tactic for the enemy to use. So subtle, under the guise of 'finding the Truth' we become suspicious of one another.
The term is sola scriptura. It's Latin for "by scripture alone". In a nutshell, SS is "the doctrine that the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness".
However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God. Sola scriptura was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation held by the Reformers and is a formal principle of Protestantism today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
Originally Posted by Shami
I know that a conservative Protestant is very different than the RCC, Orthodox and Anglican, but I thought that we had enough in common to have some fellowship. After a while I realized that this is a debate forum and not a fellowship forum. But I thought that Christians (all believers) could enjoy each others points of view and learn from each other. I spend more time defending the things that I say than real fellowship.
I know you said you've "tried" the Spirutuality forum, but might I suggest that you start your own support thread there and see who repsonds? I'm certain there are more people here who believe as you do.
What does that mean, exactly? What do you think people "suspect" you of?
You seem upset. Perhaps a religious debate forum is just not for you ... it would seem that what you really need/desire is Christians who are in complete agreement with you, not discussion and debate on the validity of Scripture authorship & interpretation.
Okay, meltdown/vent over. It's not really productive on this thread and I apologize for the hi jack.
I'm glad Bluegoat started another thread. It looks like some good info coming out so far.
Hopefully this thread can continue on course.
True. Although they'd have to be the top two, wouldn't they? I mean, it wouldn't do much good to show that religions X and Y tied for twenty-ninth place in intellectual legitimacy. :p So you'd still, in theory, have to examine every religion in some depth. Unless you came up with a logical argument that made one distinctive feature of a religion necessary for viability, in which case it would be easy to dismiss those which did not possess it in one fell swoop. I know there are some philosophers who claim that a God who is both one and many (not necessarily a trinity, but something of that sort) is necessary for some reason; but I'm not familiar enough with the argument to know if it's right. But that sort of thing could be useful.
I do think that more than one religion is intellectually legitimate. That's why, while I don't claim that subjective measures are definitive proof (for the reasons you gave), as far as I can see they are the best we've got until we die and are no longer seeing through a glass darkly.
I'll also note that Jesus never talked about discernment through rigorous logical exegesis, but he did say in Matthew 7:
15“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Jesus wasn't talking about people of different religions, though. He was comparing people who pretended to be of the true religion with those who actually were. Not Muslims vs Jews or whatever. Jesus certainly didn't proclaim that everyone who did good works was saved, regardless of doctrine. And if you believe the Pauline writings were inspired by God (which I do), there are plenty of examples of rigorous logic used to determine good doctrine from bad.
Smokering, I want to respond to this, but I think it needs its own thread so I don't keep highjacking this one. I'll try to do that soon but too busy right now...
Fair enough - I'm probably too busy to keep up with more than one RS thread at the moment anyway. Maybe after Christmas!
Follow Mothering