Does the Bible have errors in it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Led_Zeppelin75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Led Zeppelin75:
Why me, who else? I do it in other ones too.
Click to expand...
In saying that, you admit it is an unusual compulsion (else you wouldn’t have to ask “who else?”)

Now, you can hardly say God has chosen you for this mission, can you?

So we must fall back on science – what is the basis of this compulsion of yours?
 
vern humphrey:
In saying that, you admit it is an unusual compulsion (else you wouldn’t have to ask “who else?”)

Now, you can hardly say God has chosen you for this mission, can you?

So we must fall back on science – what is the basis of this compulsion of yours?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if that last post was a joke.

“Now, you can hardly say God has chosen you for this mission, can you?”

What in the world? If it’s an atheist mission than god dosen’t choose anybody.
 
Led Zeppelin75:
I also found this which has also weakened my faith quite a bit:

"Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the “Queen of Heaven.”
He was of royal descent.
He crushed a serpent’s head.
Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a “small basket of cakes,” and walked on water.
He abolished idolatry, was a “sower of the word,” and preached “the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness.”
He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
He was transfigured on a mount.
Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.
He ascended to Nirvana or “heaven.”
Buddha was considered the “Good Shepherd”, the “Carpenter”, the “Infinite and Everlasting.”
He was called the “Savior of the World” and the “Light of the World.”

Horus Of Egypt:
Horus was born of the virgin Isis-Meri on December 25th in a cave/manger, with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
He was a child teacher in the Temple and was baptized when he was 30 years old.
Horus was also baptized by “Anup the Baptizer,” who becomes “John the Baptist.”
He had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
He walked on water.
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
He was also the “Way, the Truth, the Light, the Messiah, God’s Anointed Son, the Son of Man, the Good Shepherd, the Lamb of God, the Word” etc.
He was “the Fisher,” and was associated with the Lamb, Lion and Fish (“Ichthys”).
Horus’s personal epithet was “Iusa,” the “ever-becoming son” of “Ptah,” the “Father.”
Horus was called “the KRST,” or “Anointed One,” long before the Christians duplicated the story.

Mithra:Sun god of persia

Mithra was born on December 25th.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
He performed miracles.
He was buried in a tomb.
After three days he rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.
Mithra was called “the Good Shepherd.”
He was considered “the Way, the Truth and the Light, the Redeemer, the Savior, the Messiah.”
He was identified with both the Lion and the Lamb.
His sacred day was Sunday, “the Lord’s Day,” hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
Mithra had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter, at which time he was resurrected.
His religion had a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper.”
Click to expand...
I have been told these things before. I asked for some credible sources for this but none were provided. Can you provide them?

.
 
40.png
RBushlow:
I have been told these things before. I asked for some credible sources for this but none were provided. Can you provide them?

.
Click to expand...
Research each of the religions on your own, you’ll see them true.
 
Led Zeppelin75:
It dosen’t matter what Spinoza says, Einstein is clear with his religious beliefs.

Most people, since youth, were brainwashed with the Christian religion. It can help people to get over those.
Click to expand...
Who is to say that you are not brainwashed with atheism?

Let me ask you this: Would you even allow for the possibility that Christianity was true and that Christ was the Son of God who rose from the grave. Are you THAT sure that He did not?

In Him,

Michael
 
40.png
patg:
Endlessly repeating this will not make it become true - there is no such teaching. Please read *Dei Verbum; *I will be happy to post the relevant sections if you can’t find them.
Click to expand...
Patg,

I responded to you in post #73, and I gave the quotes. You may reject the Church teachings that I quoted, but you can’t claim “there is no such teaching”, because I gave them.

If we have an ambiguous coucil (Vatican II) that can be (and is being) interpreted many different ways, we are to interpret it based on the infallible, unambiguous, and unchanging dogmas of the Faith. We do not interpret infallible dogmas through the distorted lens of an ambiguity… it is the other way around. The ambiguous is to be interpret so that it corresponds to that which has been clearly defined.

I am sorry if you are unable to understand this.
 
40.png
michaelp:
Who is to say that you are not brainwashed with atheism?

Let me ask you this: Would you even allow for the possibility that Christianity was true and that Christ was the Son of God who rose from the grave. Are you THAT sure that He did not?

In Him,

Michael
Click to expand...
Because I’m an atheist by my own decision. I had to actually open my mind to learn things about atheism.
 
Led Zeppelin75:
I don’t know if that last post was a joke.

“Now, you can hardly say God has chosen you for this mission, can you?”

What in the world? If it’s an atheist mission than god dosen’t choose anybody.
Click to expand...
You picked up on that, did you?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

If your “mission” isn’t externally generated, it must be internally generated. What in your psyche drives you to enter a Catholic forum?

Answer that honestly, and you’ll know a lot more about yourself – and may find some surprising answers.
 
Led Zeppelin75:
Because I’m an atheist by my own decision. I had to actually open my mind to learn things about atheism.
Click to expand...
OK, that is the standard of not being “brainwashed” then neither am I. I am a Christian by my own decision. Now I think we may have some common ground, but I don’t think you should assume that people are what they are because the are “brainwashed.” Some people may be, but as you have said, some people are not.

Thanks

Michael
 
Let me ask you this: Would you even allow for the possibility that Christianity was true and that Christ was the Son of God who rose from the grave. Are you THAT sure that He did not?
Click to expand...
Led, What about this one?
 
40.png
michaelp:
Led, What about this one?
Click to expand...
Yes I am sure. I’m as sure as you are that Mohammad didn’t rise into Heaven. We’re both atheists, my freind. I just believe in one less god than you do.
 
40.png
michaelp:
OK, that is the standard of not being “brainwashed” then neither am I. I am a Christian by my own decision. Now I think we may have some common ground, but I don’t think you should assume that people are what they are because the are “brainwashed.” Some people may be, but as you have said, some people are not.

Thanks

Michael
Click to expand...
Many people toss the term “brainwashing” around like it was some established technique in use everywhere. Pavlovian style “brainwashing” not only isn’t common, it doesn’t even apply to things like religion and values.

Many people are TAUGHT things – like moral and political values – and cling to those things for the rest of their lives. A good example would be those Catholics who vote for pro-abortion candidates. They erect huge edifices to justify their choices. But you can hardly call them “brainwashed.”
 
40.png
RSiscoe:
Patg,

I responded to you in post #73, and I gave the quotes. You may reject the Church teachings that I quoted, but you can’t claim “there is no such teaching”, because I gave them.

If we have an ambiguous coucil (Vatican II) that can be (and is being) interpreted many different ways, we are to interpret it based on the infallible, unambiguous, and unchanging dogmas of the Faith. We do not interpret infallible dogmas through the distorted lens of an ambiguity… it is the other way around. The ambiguous is to be interpret so that it corresponds to that which has been clearly defined.

I am sorry if you are unable to understand this.
Click to expand...
Rsiscoe;

I have enjoyed your views of biblical interpetation. You are quite knowledgeable in some of the writings of the popes. Where are you studying Theology at, who is your teacher?

I am curious to your answers. Also, Why do you think VCII was amiguous? Why do you not see it in the light of Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine? What is your opinion on VCII in general.

I think if we look at the historical circumstances in which the encyclicals were wrote(which hold less weight, considerably less than Ecumenical Council Documents, such as Dei Verbum) we can see why and exactly what the Popes were saying. This is how we do biblical Exegesis as well. One can not just take the text in of itself and by itself - it must be taken in light of history, language and the culture at the time.

In light of all that, the great Universities - Franciscan Univ., Benedictine, the Gregorian University in Rome (Italian Speaking), and (I can’t remember the name of it) the Augustinian College (English Speaking) in Rome all teach that their students, future Priests, Bishops, and Popes(maybe) that the bible teaches us Why, not How. Is it important as to when the Lord’s “agony in the garden” prayer was? In the synoptics, it is right after the last supper. In John, it is way before the Last Supper. In the synoptics, it is an agony, in John Jesus takes charge and accepts this charge without agony. The point - it doesn’t matter HOW it took place, but WHY it took place. This doesn’t take away from scripture. It just emphasizes two different points of view. But so many people today and back then want to take these “contradictions” and use them against us. They are not contradicitons, just different vantage points, all saying the same thing in a different way. If any thing it adds to God’s genius and His love for us that he allows us to get the same messgae two different ways.

If you are taking college class in Theology I highly reccomend Fransiscan Univ. They have classes you can take via correspondance. If you take Biblical Exegesis II:New Testament you be taught by Dr. Andrew Mintow - who is incredible both in his knowledge of history and Greek, Latian, Hebreww, and Aramaic. You might want to take Theology of the Church as well, by Dr. Regis Martin. He has some books out as well, but he was trained in Rome and he likewise has a fantastic understanding of Biblical exegesis. He is also a very funny guy. He is very honest and a straight shooter. As a matter of fact, he doesn’t use the term “Protestant Reformation”, he calls it The Protestant Revolt becuase that is indeed what it was. No need to make it “sanitary”!

Hope this helps, take care and God bless.
 
40.png
Dismas2004:
Rsiscoe;

I have enjoyed your views of biblical interpetation. You are quite knowledgeable in some of the writings of the popes. Where are you studying Theology at, who is your teacher?

I am curious to your answers. Also, Why do you think VCII was amiguous? Why do you not see it in the light of Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine? What is your opinion on VCII in general.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the questions.

You asked why I think Vatican II is ambiguous. Maybe the best and easiest way to answer that is by the evidence. How many times have we heard someone claim that “Vatican II is being misinterpreted?” Why is that? Why do so many people “misinterpret” the council? The reason is because it is full of either double-speak or wiggle room that the liberals have used to move their agenda forward.

The following is just one example out of hundreds that demonstrate this ambiguity: In *Sacrosanctum Concilium *(On the Consititution on the Sacred Liturgy, Dec. 4, 1963) we are told that the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite.

“The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to be preserved in the Latin rites.”

But then in the very next sentence we read the following:

But since the use of the vernacular, whether in the Mass, in the administration of the sacraments, or in other parts of the liturgy, may frequently be of great advantage to the people, a wider use may be made of it, especially in readings, directives, and in some prayers and chants".

So which is it? Is the Latin language to be preserved, or not? In one sentence we are told that it is, but then in the next sentence we are told that a wider use of the vernacular is to be made use of. What was the result of this ambiguity? The liberals used it to do away with the Latin language. Today the universal language of the Church has all but disappeared from the administration of the sacraments in the average parish. This is just one of many ambiguities found in the Council, and what the liberals do with these ambiguities.
But the matter of language is not nearly as serious as the doctrinal confusing that has resulted since the Council. For example, the Church teaches infallibly that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, and that all Jews, heretics, and schismatics will go to hell. It actually defined that as a dogma of the faith.

continue…
 
Even though this had been taught since the days of the apostles, and defined ec-cathedra, nevertheless, many people no longer believe it. They believe that Vatican II changed this teaching. But it is not within the power of a council to change a truth revealed by God. Truth does not change.

That is why we must interpret the ambiguous through the lends of the unambiguous. If Vatican II seems to contradict itself, or a defined dogma of the faith, there is no question what we are to believe. We believe what has always been believed.

Paul VI, who reigned over the close of the Council stated that it did not engage the extraordinary magesterium. In other words, according to Paul VI, Vatican II was NOT an infallible council. That is what he said. So, if a council that is not infallible contradicts infallible dogmatic definitions, and 2000 years of consistent Catholic teaching, what are we to do? Simple, we interpret the ambiguous through the lens of the unambiguous. Since we know that there is not salvation outside the Church, we must interpret Vatican II so that it agrees with this dogma of the Catholic Church.

If it were possible for Vatican II to change what the Church has always taught, and even defined infallibly, then there is not reason to believe that the Church could not eventually say that abortion is OK; that homosexuality is “now acceptable” and that women can be Priests. If Vatican II could change the dogma of no salvation outside the Catholic Church, then why could not Vatican III change the Churches teachings of abortion? Or homosexuality? Or women Priests?

In the “apologetics” section of these boards, I gave many quotes from the ordinary and extraordinary magesterium which clearly stated the Church teaching of no salvation outside the Church. How many Catholics today still believe what those Popes and saints taught? Why do they no longer believe that?
 
One more point. If you read through my discussions on this board, you will certainly noticed that people were disagreeing with the Popes I quoted because of what the Church now teaches.

I quoted Pope after Pope saying the the Bible is inspired in everything: not just faith and morals, but even history. Yet, in spite of these quotes, people disagreed with me. One person (Patg) kept telling me to read Dei Verbum, as though I would then be able to see the light and realize that all the Popes I quoted were wrong. But the Popes I quoted based what they said on the Councils of Florence, Trent and Vatican I, which WERE dogmatic councils that taught infallibly. Remember, according to Paul VI, Vatican II did not teach on that level. I will find the quote if you would like.

So in conclusion, if you read through my discussions on this thread, you will see people who use Vatican II and the New Catechism to contradict (and nullify) what the Church has always taught. Why is that?
 
40.png
Dismas2004:
Why do you not see it in the light of Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine?
Click to expand...
Certainly there is a developement to doctrine, but doctrine will never develope in a way that contradicts what has always been taught. When doctrines developes we gain clarity to what has always been believed; never will a developement lead to another belief. For example: The early Christians believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But when the Church defined the dogma, we were told exactly how the change takes place, and how what appears to be bread can actually be Christ’s body. The teaching did not change from what had been believed; instead, we learned that the substance of the bread changes into the Body of Christ, while the accidents (what appears to the senses) remains that of bread. Thus, the doctrine developed, but did not change.

There is also a true developement of other doctrines; but never will a doctrine develope so that the understanding of it completely changes. This is not a true developement, but a distortion.

We also need to realize that when a doctrine has been defined, there is no changing it. When a Pope defines a doctrine infallibly, it becomes part of the faith that Catholics must submit to. For a Catholic a dogma is not questioned, but believed.

Many of the dogmas of the Faith are now questioned and “re-enterpreted” in light of the ambiguous Second Vatican Council. But a defined dogma cannot be reinterpreted.

I would suggest reading what Vatican I had to say about Papal Infallibility, when it defined it as a dogma of the Faith. You can probably find it online. You will see that even the Pope is limited to what the Church has always taught. A Pope has no authority to change the unchangeable teachings of the Church. He must submit to them just as you or I.

The same obviously holds true for a Council that a Pope ratifies. No Council can change what has already bee defined.
 
Led Zeppelin75:
Yes I am sure. I’m as sure as you are that Mohammad didn’t rise into Heaven. We’re both atheists, my freind. I just believe in one less god than you do.
Click to expand...
Then what’s the use in talking to you? You are self-confessingly completely closed minded to anything anyone would say.

Good talking to you though,

Michael
 
Led Zeppelin75:
It dosen’t matter what Spinoza says, Einstein is clear with his religious beliefs.

Most people, since youth, were brainwashed with the Christian religion. It can help people to get over those.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top