The Bible is Bunk

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by Superman
The core NT books were generally thought to have been written between 60 and 90 AD. Some folks are even asserting less. Well, this is the number of years after Jesus BIRTH. We think he was 33 at time of crucifiction. And we're not sure the dating process actually chose the right year for Jesus' birth. So, the earliest NT scriptures MAY have been written as soon as ten or fifteen years after his death. Probably not. Probably more like 25-30 years. But not the eons that most folks seem to think.

Craig Bloomberg P.H.D. (Tyndale House at Cambridge, Senior research fellow and professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary)

"If the Crucifixon was as early as A.D. 30, Paul's conversion was about A.D. 32. Immediately Paul was ushered into Damascus, where he met with a Christian named Ananias and some other disciples. His first meeting withthe apostles in Jerusalem would have been about A.D. 35. At some point along there, Paul was given this creed [1 Corinthians 15], which had already been formulated and was being used in the early church.

"Now, here [1 Corinthians 15] you have the key facts about Jesus' death for our sins, plus a detailed list of those to whom he appeared in resurrected form--all dating back to within 5 years of the events themselves!"

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
Likewise, with Bruce. I mean, the man was a Bible Apologetic for cyrin' out loud...expecting anything other than statements absolutely defending the authenticity of the bible would be out of character.

Ya, that is problematic...The problem is atheistic brilliant men like he, C.S. Lewis, Simon Greenleaf, Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel (just to mention a few) go into the study with full intents to disprove Christianity, yet come out the other side full fledged zealots.

[Superman]

Again, the debate regarding the historical accuracy of the Bible is a digression and a distraction and deflection, unless the discussion is purely historic. The trouble with the debate, usually, is that the discussion does not remain contained in the field of History. I see it happening in this thread. The Church, my Church, the Catholic Church, teaches and has long taught that this debate is inappropriate if any part of the discussion is theological. The message in the article at the start of this thread, is the same message the Church has been giving all my life. That for historical purposes, scientific doubt should be active. But for theological purposes, historical accuracy questions are moot.

Frankly, and this is going to surprise some of you coming from a known liberal, I don't doubt the historical accuracy of the Bible. Nor do I assert it. I don't know that Eve was not fashioned out of a rib. For my purposes, my Faith, I assume she was. But that's not the same as assuming she was fashioned out of a rib for historical purposes. It's a trap, and my assumptions avoid the trap. If I discover that Eve was not fashioned out of a rib (which in fact no one will ever be able to prove or disprove, but if it could be proven inaccurate...) it will not impact my Faith. This is the importance of separating these two fields of study.

[livi]

Whats the point of arguing whether a book that was supposedly written thousands of years ago is authentic or not ?!! Ainīt no way of proving it anyhow.

Suffice to say its the worldīs most read fairy tale and some subscribe to it - others donīt.

Some people doubt Darwin, some people doubt God.

What ever makes you happy.

[yellowline]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
No man is capable of absolving sin except Christ Jesus, as advocate to his Father...We are to call NO MAN "father" except God himself, there is no Biblical foundation for a Papacy, idol worship of what you call saints is no secret in Catholic orthodoxy.

Nope. That's why a priest absolves sin in God's name. The priest is a vehicle through which sacraments are delivered. The usual rite that the priest speaks as a penance:

God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Do you see anything in there about the priest doing the forgiving, or is he just the mediator? (Hint: it's the latter.)

In terms of biblical foundation, how about Christ referring to Peter: "On this rock I will build my Church?"

There is no idol worship. We ask the saints to intercede for us. If you (I hope not) get sick and ask for my prayers, I pray to God to help you. There's no difference, and nothing wrong with veneration of exemplary men and women. Stained-glass windows are not idols; they were orignally picture books to the illiterate peasantry of medieval Europe.

I'm Catholic, so don't lecture me how I supposedly worship. I pray through saints, ask Christ to forgive me of sins through the priests, and fully support the concept of papal infallibility on moral and spiritual matters. As a former altar server, I've assisted many fine and honorable men, of whom form the vast majority of priests.

BTW, while IMO you're flat-out buying the vicious lies your leaders tell about Catholicism, I won't go out on the offensive about it. I wouldn't have posted here if you hadn't posted what you said.

Also to all: I'm not out to convert, I believe that if you make the choice to not belong after honestly and fully seeing what the religion has to offer, then that's the choice you made, and I won't pester you about it.

[nostatic]

saints are pointers, not idols.

common misconception by those who don't understand. Or who don't want to understand.

[skipdup]

Originally posted by IROC
...
I think the only people who "trust the scriptures" and subscribe to literal interpretations of the bible are those that have suspended rational thought.
...

Mike- You nailed it. We're all just stupid. Well said!

[CamB]

Originally posted by CamB to Mul
I would have thought you'd have better things to do with your time than condemn other Christians.

Seriously, expend your efforts converting someone to Christianity, not berating those who don't believe "properly".

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by Superman
The core NT books were generally thought to have been written between 60 and 90 AD. Some folks are even asserting less. Well, this is the number of years after Jesus BIRTH. We think he was 33 at time of crucifiction. And we're not sure the dating process actually chose the right year for Jesus' birth. So, the earliest NT scriptures MAY have been written as soon as ten or fifteen years after his death. Probably not. Probably more like 25-30 years. But not the eons that most folks seem to think.

Yes. I concur with everything you said.

However the possibility that at least some of the gospels were based off earlier sources has been postulated at least since the 1800's

Here is a good synopsis of the various source document theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis

Mul-

I am Catholic so, but it appears you don't know much about Catholics.

As far as the the bible goes. My faith isn't confined to the pages of a book. The glory of God is much greater than that. So it does not bother me one bit if the bible isn't 100% historically accurate. It is the morality that is important...not small historical details.

Engage in trolling if you want...and I do think it is trolling, because like I said, I think your are just trying to get a knee jerk reaction.

And now, really, that IS the last thing I am going to write about this.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by CamB
Seriously, expend your efforts converting someone to Christianity, not berating those who don't believe "properly".

I do not condemn other Christians...I condemn those who subscribe to anything not Biblical...The worship of saints is not Biblical, nor is the Papacy, nor is the necessity of a mediator, other than Jesus Christ, absolving one of sins...Ritualism has a tendency of creating a legalistic bend, and this is very dangerous to belief...Rosary beads?...Where in the world did that come from...We are saved by Grace and Grace alone.

I am non-denominational...I am not a believer in Catholicism...I do not trust Churchianity...The Catholic, as well as the Protestant churches have lost their way, and I am not following them into the pit of false or manipulated doctrine. You judge a tree by its fruit, these Catholic "leaders" are proving to me that the fruit is indeed thorns.

You are either a Bible believing Christian or you are not...You cannot take a little here, drop a little there, and call yourself a Believer in Christ.

1 John 5:10-12

Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life."

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
Mul-

I am Catholic so, but it appears you don't know much about Catholics.

Nice try buddy...Went to Catholic school.

I know a lot more than most Catholics about Catholicism. Their too close for comfort relationship with communism only magnifies my distrust of their spurious doctrine.

Do I think Catholics are bound for Hell, just for being a Catholic?...There is no way I could get that through my head. The good that the Catholic church has done for the world far outweighs the bad; but it seems like it has been nothing but going from bad to worse as of late...If I hear one more person say "I am a recovering Catholic" I am going to puke...They are driving people away from God, not being salt and light.

[CamB]

What the guy on the bike said - "Engage in trolling if you want...and I do think it is trolling, because like I said, I think your are just trying to get a knee jerk reaction."

Your religion is like your politics - rigid and inflexible to ideas which don't fit into your own definition. You think everyone is wrong except you.

People aren't like that and I don't believe God created His people like that.

I just can't be bothered with this. There is so much more to Catholic teaching than I could possibly ever know, and I'm an open recepticle (sp?) to it. The Church has an answer for every single misconception you have listed, but you don't want to listen or reflect on the possibility of it.

Your mind is closed, and so is my posting to this thread.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by CamB
Your religion is like your politics - rigid and inflexible to ideas which don't fit into your own definition. You think everyone is wrong except you.

Luke 13:23

"Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" He said to them, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.' "But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.'

"Then you will say, 'We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.'

"But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'

Matthew 7:13-15

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Watch out for false prophets."

Matthew 13:41-43

"I, the Son of Man, will send my angels, and they will remove from my Kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil, and they will throw them into the furnace and burn them. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the godly will shine like the sun in their Father's Kingdom. Anyone who is willing to hear should listen and understand!"

Matthew 13:47-50

"The Kingdom of Heaven is like a fishing net that is thrown into the water and gathers fish of every kind. When the net is full, they drag it up onto the shore, sit down, sort the good fish into crates, and throw the bad ones away. That is the way it will be at the end of the world. The angels will come and separate the wicked people from the godly, throwing the wicked into the fire. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Revelations

"Cowards who turn away from me, and unbelievers, and the corrupt, and murderers, and the immoral, and those who practice witchcraft, and idol worshipers, and all liars -- their doom is in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. This is the second death."



Choose wisely what you hold onto and what you throw out...As you may be slapping God in the face as you do.

edit: relied on a website on accident...{fact checking}

[yellowline]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose

You are either a Bible believing Christian or you are not...You cannot take a little here, drop a little there, and call yourself a Believer in Christ.

1 John 5:10-12

Anyone who believes in the Son of God has this testimony in his heart. Anyone who does not believe God has made him out to be a liar, because he has not believed the testimony God has given about his Son. And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life." [/B]

There's a difference between thinking the Bible is historically accurate and literal down to the last verse, and taking the important message: that the Bible is the process of God's revelation of Himself to the Jewish people, culminating in the gift of His son, Christ. In that sense, I am very much a Biblical Christian. But I also rely on Catholic tradition.

Why are there two different creation stories, found in Gn 1-3? That's right...different writers, different traditions. Some wished to focus on God's power, others focused on His interaction with humans.

And as far as association with all the -isms...yes, the Church is a divine institution run by humans. So we got comfy with Mussolini...not a good move. Still, our late pope did as much, if not more than this country did to bring about the downfall of the Soviet Union. You can't accurately say the Church is in bed with communists, drawing evidence from the Church's last days as a political power.

But, you're Mul. You won't listen. Good thing I agree with you on most other issues...I'd end wasting far too much time on here defending my position otherwise.

[IROC]

Originally posted by skipdup
Mike- You nailed it. We're all just stupid. Well said!

No, Skip, your persecution complex is flaring up again.

What I said was if you truly believe that the bible is literally true - word for word - then you have some 'splainin to do.

Mike

[Superman]

Originally posted by yellowline

In terms of biblical foundation, how about Christ referring to Peter: "On this rock I will build my Church?"

Yellowline makes an eloquent and accurate description of several caricatures and false beliefs about the Catholic Church held by those who enjoy criticizing without taking the time to learn the facts. I would just augment the Bible passage he quoted above. That scripture goes on to quote Christ as saying that he gives the keys to the gates of Heaven to Peter, and that what he binds on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and what he looses on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.

Now two things jump right out at you in that statement. One is the absolute lunacy of the remark, unless this man, Jesus, was who He said He was. The other speaks to those who scoff at the authority of the Vatican.

This Bible, this book we're discussing, is a fascinating and powerful document that you simply cannot dismiss at least until you have read it carefully. In it you would find that Christ will not come here to separate the good people from the bad people. He will separate those who dismiss Him from those who believe He was who He said He was. Simple as that. That's the choice I faced and I made my decision. Now you make yours.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
The good that the Catholic church has done for the world far outweighs the bad; but it seems like it has been nothing but going from bad to worse as of late...

It's easy to understand your position on this. It is a direct consequence of your gullibility, your love of soundbite propaganda and your lack of tendency toward critical thought. Respectfully.

[Superman]

Originally posted by IROC
I think the only people who "trust the scriptures" and subscribe to literal interpretations of the bible are those that have suspended rational thought.

Interestingly, Skip has stumbled upon an interesting truth he almost certainly does not understand. He correctly applauds IROC's remark here, that IROC probably also does not fully grok. One of my degrees is in philosophy. I really enjoy debate (I know this comes as a surprise to all of you), dialectic, logic, critical thinking, that sort of stuff. There was a time when these things were getting in the way of my Faith. For example, the following contradiction bothered me:

If God is all good and all powerful, then I've got a compound question. I wonder not only why He created a world with Evil in it, but HOW He could. If He did, then could we still conclude that He is all good? Seemingly not.

So, if you have not had trouble with these concepts, you probably do not understand the real truth behind IROC's statement that some form of a suspension of rational thought is indeed necessary for Faith. Unless of course, you are one of the lucky people whose thinking is sufficiently simple that you have not considered these questions and care not to.

But if you do, you will better understand what you may have heard about the sin of Pride.

The Bible is a fascinating work. It will trap you, unless you choose to stand outside and cast stones in ignorance. Come in, and the view is quite different. But you have to leave your pride at the door.

[IROC]

Well said, Supe. Although I have issues (nitpicks many would say) with literal declarations in the Bible, the more serious problems I cannot rationalize deal more with the "Epicurean" issues that you raise.

Mike

[livi]

Superman,

Let me just try to understand your view on an apparently controversial issue. The origin of everything on this planet. From the smallest ant to man.

Was Charles Darwin just another delusional, confused "wanna be", out to make a buck. If not - are the two thesis's (creation and evolution) mutually incompatible ?

In my (trying to be humble) mind I would not rule out a God with a creational theme - it just happens my "inner space" seems to be more tempted to believe in Evolution (hence lacking a God). Since there are no compelling evidence ruling out any of the theories, for now, I tend to go with the evolutionary.

I am very curious about the God - Christ - Creation theme, however. Not least since there are so many believers. Kind of "no smoke without at least a little fire". I have read large parts of the Bible as well as really tried hard to learn to enjoy classical music. Itīs just that no matter how open minded/open eared I try to be - it simply does not grasp me on an inner, deep down heart and soul manner.