Kinh Thánh Có Phải Là Lời Của Chúa?

  • HoaiNiem

    khoảng 2 10 năm trước
  • Các bạn nghĩ sao về sách kinh hoạc Kinh Thánh (Holy Bible) có phải hoàn toàn là lời của Chúa?

    Is the bible contained the Words of God and infallible?

    After some 2000 years, Christianity has been divided into many denominations with much controversies. These controversies and debates have become more intense in the last 50 years and more so in the last 10 years since the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi documents in 1945 and now made available to many to read via the internet along with the many found documents before it.

    I think these topics are worthy of our discussions and would like to hear your thought.

  • HoaiNiem

    khoảng 2 10 năm trước
  • Riêng về STTY thấy Kinh Thánh (KT) or Holy Bible có nhiều điều rất hay đẹp và đúng và sẽ rất giúp ích cho con người tìm hiểu sự thật và đón nhận Tình Yêu cao quý của Thiên Chúa Cha. Ngược lại KT cũng có nhiều điều đã được ghi chép mà STTY không đồng ý và cho rằng là những lời ghi chép thêm của những người sau này không đúng theo sự thật của Thiên Chúa Cha sẽ làm cản ngăn con người tìm đến được với Ngài.

    Sau đây là tóm tắt tiểu sử của KT.

    adapted from materials of Professor Paul Hahn of the University of St. Thomas, Houston, Texas

    Development of the Old Testament Canon

    1000-50 BC: The Old Testament (hereafter "OT") books are written.

    C. 200 BC: Rabbis translate the OT from Hebrew to Greek, a translation called the "Septuagint" (abbreviation: "LXX"). The LXX ultimately includes 46 books.

    AD 30-100: Christians use the LXX as their scriptures. This upsets the Jews.

    C. AD 100: So Jewish rabbis meet at the Council of Jamniah and decide to include in their canon only 39 books, since only these can be found in Hebrew.

    C. AD 400: Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (called the "Vulgate"). He knows that the Jews have only 39 books, and he wants to limit the OT to these; the 7 he would leave out (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [or "Ecclesiasticus"], and Baruch--he calls "apocrypha," that is, "hidden books." But Pope Damasus wants all 46 traditionally-used books included in the OT, so the Vulgate has 46.

    AD 1536: Luther translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek to German. He assumes that, since Jews wrote the Old Testament, theirs is the correct canon; he puts the extra 7 books in an appendix that he calls the "Apocrypha."

    AD 1546: The Catholic Council of Trent reaffirms the canonicity of all 46 books.


    Development of the New Testament Canon

    C. AD 51-125: The New Testament books are written, but during this same period other early Christian writings are produced--for example, the Didache (c. AD 70), 1 Clement (c. 96), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 100), and the 7 letters of Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110).

    C. AD 140: Marcion, a businessman in Rome, teaches that there were two Gods: Yahweh, the cruel God of the OT, and Abba, the kind father of the NT. So Marcion eliminates the Old Testament as scriptures and, since he is anti-Semitic, keeps from the NT only 10 letters of Paul and 2/3 of Luke's gospel (he deletes references to Jesus' Jewishness). Marcion's "New Testament"--the first to be compiled--forces the mainstream Church to decide on a core canon: the four gospels and letters of Paul.

    C. AD 200: But the periphery of the canon is not yet determined. According to one list, compiled at Rome c. AD 200 (the Muratorian Canon), the NT consists of the 4 gospels; Acts; 13 letters of Paul (Hebrews is not included); 3 of the 7 General Epistles (1-2 John and Jude); and also the Apocalypse of Peter.

    AD 367: The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Easter letter of 367. [Note: this is well after the Constantine's Edict of Toleration in 313 A.D.]

    AD 904: Pope Damasus, in a letter to a French bishop, lists the New Testament books in their present number and order.

    AD 1442: At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognizes the 27 books, though does not declare them unalterable.

    AD 1536: In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removes 4 NT books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations) from their normal order and places them at the end, stating that they are less than canonical.

    AD 1546: At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirms once and for all the full list of 27 books as traditionally accepted.

  • ShinichiKudo

    khoảng 2 10 năm trước
  • Hmm interesting !!!!!!
    I think after many times of hand copying , I believe somewhat can be changed . For example , with the same incident, Jean and Paul report in diferent place and different set . However, the sacred scriptures are very hard to testified the deepest truth of our belief . For example, we lean on bible to build our believe . Since our believes are solid enoụgh, we can understand the message of god contained in the bible . Vatican and many others try to seek for the original script , but i think god givves us enough evidences to prove his existance and his power.

    Me actually i am not very religious. I dont really care the accuracy of biblẹ But i care about how people interprete the bible in the good way :)

  • bandit16

    khoảng 2 10 năm trước
  • uh..i dont really know ......................

  • HoaiNiem

    khoảng 2 10 năm trước
  • The following are excerpts from the book titled, "An Introduction to New Testament Christology" 1994 by father Raymond Brown

    Father Raymond E. Brown, S.S. is auburn Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary (N.Y.C.) and a former member of the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commision.

    P.8- Scholars of Protestant upbringing were the most prominent advocates of biblical criticism; and some of them used it to challenge traditional Christian beliefs, even denying the divinity of Jesus. Many churchgoing Protestant believers reacted hostiely to the scholars' views which they regarded as destructive of Christianity; and in order to protect the "fundamentals" of Christian faith, they rejected biblical criticism itself, not merely a radical use of it.

    P.8- Catholic scholars were slow to accept the more trenchant forms of biblical criticism; and some of those who were imprudently adventurous were condemned by the church authorities at Rome in the antiModernist atmosphere of the early 1900s. Because of this cautious church control, ordinary Catholics were not even aware that there could be differences between Jesus in his lifetime and Jesus as described in the NT writings. Their conservatism on this and other biblical questions was all-pervasive, but not defensive. Catholic Modernism with its excesses was crushed before it had gained much following, and for all practical purposes there was no liberal biblical teaching within Catholicism to defend against.

    P.9- However,, the Roman Catholic Church began to change its position toward biblical criticism under Pope Pius XII in the 1940s and to encourage an intelligent use of it. By the 1960s official church teaching affirmed that the Gospels were not necessarily literal accounts of the words and deeds of Jesus*. (STTY: Believe Catechism I was written as a result of this and Catechism II was printed in 2000.)

    (*This was referenced to the Roman Pontifical Biblical Commission's "Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels" (1964), the crucial paragraphs of which are published in BBRC 111-15; see also NJBC 72, #35. The substance of this instruction was taken over into Vatican II's "Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation" (Dei Verbum 5.19). The history of the development of Catholic biblical thought in the last 100 years is summarized in NJBC 72, #3-9)

    Such an affirmation should have prepared Catholics to understand the basic christological issue that there could be a difference between Jesus’ self-presentation and the affirmations made of him by the NT writers. Yet this change of teaching has not been successfully communicated to the Catholic public at large; and so nonscholarly conservatism still prevails. Most churchgoing Catholics are not yet aware of any other view, even though now almost all Catholic biblical scholars have accepted that the Gospels manifest a development beyond the era of Jesus and for years have taught such a development to candidates for the priesthood or theological degrees.

    (Note how he referenced the NT writers and not specifically to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.)

    P.11- (FN: Somewhere in between nonscholarly liberalism and scholarly liberalism is the view of those who have read scholarly liberal works but those view of Jesus is really determined more by their reaction to the suffocating fundamentalism in which they were raised. I would consider the Episcopal bishop J. S. Spong and example of this. In “Born of a Woman” (San Francisco: Harper, 1992), 36-40, he presents a Jesus who was not of divine origin, but a gifted, humble, generous, and self-giving human being whose friends certainly did not understand him as a messiah. Yet they underwent an Easter experience or internal realization that enabled them to see patterns of total dependence on God in Jesus so that his life reflected God’s life.)

Designed by squallions © 2004 - 2009 (MYE). All Rights Reserved.
All posts and comments are owned by the poster. MYE is not responsible or liable for any content its member posted.
Mọi chi tiết, xin liên hệ: contact
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group