Logic and research in Bible and Belief

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrunoMaria
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrunoMaria

Guest
Logic and research in Bible and Belief

There is such a lot of misleading research about the Bible, that it’s a disgrace before God and the people. So many spend a lifetime in researching who wrote what and when, and did he at all write that such or is it a big error not only of the author, but as well of former research and translation - and doesn’t finally plain logic contradict it all.
The target of extensive research are all four Evangelists, St. Paul’s letters and yes, even Jesus Christ Himself. Did He really say this or that, and was He more than that man of Nazareth, a place out of which nothing good came by now (John 1,46). Didn’t Christ warn vividly in Mt 5,18, that not a iota, nor the smallest letter of the law will be lost before all is fulfilled and we are all judged according to our belief and deeds, and started our eternal life in God’s Glory - or far away of it.
What’s surprising in all these efforts to secularize not only the Bible but Belief altogether is; that all these burrowing academic voles don’t see, that there is a higher logic; one that surpasses all secular reason, to which it’s simply not reasonable. It’s that divine logic that’s strong enough to hold all creation together from the tiniest atom and grain of Sand, to all the universe. To even keep the world thus alive, together with our universe in its harmony, beauty and incomparably unique functionality. So, that we even got a relaxed time to ponder in peace whether or not divine truth is more important than endless investigating to disproof or “correct” the Bible. Didn’t Christ teach, that not a Iota will
But at this point objections and concerns are raised as to the importance of biblical research, just to make sure. It’s exactly this “Just to make sure” though, that excludes belief, and replaces belief by doubts for as the world sais: To believe means not to know. But we do KNOW and our belief is based on Jesus Christ whom we know.
Just to make sure is exactly our stumbling block, that replaces faith by doubts and qualms. These however, are the deep-rooted barriers between God and us, for God set BELIEF as precondition for eternal life with Him. However deep-rooted they might have been planted - we can overcome, if we flee into Christ’s love and there confess our doubts. Don’t worry - you then are given understanding as Jesus Christ made clear in Mt 13,51, when Jesus asked the crowd, if they understood and most said Yes, Christ returned: Then you are like a householder, who brings out of his treasure new and old things he resees, rediscovers in delight…
To be continued below:
 
Last edited:
Now, of course there are two different kinds of resurges in the Bible. The one of the Church doesn’t doubt, but it seeks for to bring forward further proof of the absolute truth in the Gospel and it’s certifying and verifying Acts and Letters of the Apostles.
What does it matter as to when and exactly by whom a statement was drafted. If by Paul himself or one of his students. If John wrote his Gospel before or after his vision of the Revelation and in which age. The Gospel of St. John that leaving out details of Christ’s life among us, because the other three apostles Matthew, Mark and Luke had written all about it with extreme empathy and persuasiveness, because they themselves underwent and experienced every detail of what they wrote about is the Gospel that makes Christ’s Divinity clearer than all the rest of the Bible. John though, understood most of all and first of all, that Christ was God, and such, John really loved Jesus Christ, as he first of all knew that he was loved by God in the incarnated Jesus Christ.
One of the main scandals of the world is this very mutual love Jesus John - John Jesus. Filthiest suspicions especially in the gay world are uttered and more. Those are these who mock Christ on the Cross with greatest irony - Mt 27,40: Save yourself! and come down from the cross if you are the Son of God!” Mt 27,49: But the rest said, “Leave him alone! Let’s see if Elijah will come to save him".
Such details referring to the lost, John did not mention, for he thought in a wider range; didn’t mind so much those God would spit out of his mouth (the word mentioned in Revelation 3,16). John’s different attitude and sight - fifferent from the other three Evangelists becomes clear clear with John’s introduction: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
It comes to pass, that Pope Francis spoke in his yesterdays homily about God’s love. Pope Francis explained by Paul’s letter to the Ephesians 3,17-19 that to understand, it takes our opening to Christ, that He with us and in us makes us understand and grasp what the unfathomable love of God means and is. Here we again get across John 1,1: The Word, which is a part of God that He gave us to become human - to own language unique above all creatures alone. Language to capture God as far, as to be able to understand and grasp what the unfathomable love of God means and is - in Christ our Lord Jesus.

Yours
Bruno
Holzschnitzereien@Krippenfiguren.com
 
BrunoMaria said:
… Such details referring to the lost, John did not mention, for he thought in a wider range; didn’t mind so much those God would spit out of his mouth (the word mentioned in Revelation 3,16) …
Click to expand...
John does refer to the lost, John 3:
18 Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the verdict, that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed. 21 But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.
Click to expand...
 
I haven’t fully grasped the point you’re trying to make in this long double post. At times you seem to be attacking the field of New Testament Studies as a whole. Is that it?
 
Yes of course St. John did refer to the lost in John 3. But I tried to say, that John did not refer to the lost under the Cross of Christ. Those lost who mocked the dying Jesus on the cross. John did not refer to these details the other Evangelists did, because they already had told us.
John, who other than the Synoptics left out secular details, and rather led our attentiveness solely on Christ’s Divinity, disregarding uttering and mutterings of the lost under the cross, who were not even aware that is was demons who gave them these words about the God in God, Light from Light, true God of true God right here.

These people John simply disregarded. To him they were not worth to be mentioned in this great hour, when Gods plan was finally fulfilled - God’s tremendous performance of Love to save us. John admitted no distraction of our line of vision upon God in God, Jesus Christ.
 
Last edited:
simply read it again, and you’ll find the point.
 
Last edited:
Some of your assertions remain unclear, I’m sorry to say. For example, this one:

’“… the other three apostles Matthew, Mark and Luke had written all about it with extreme empathy and persuasiveness, because they themselves underwent and experienced every detail of what they wrote about …”

Here you seem to be saying that the authors of all three synoptic Gospels were eyewitnesses to the events they describe. Can you please confirm that, in your view, all three authors were eyewtinesses to the earthly ministry of Jesus, to his Passion, and to his Resurrection?
 
Last edited:
The Bible tells, that St. John and Holy Mary where present at the unbelievable atrocity when those whom Jesus forgave on the cross what they were doing „for they don’t know what they are doing“ - were seen and watched by many. Christ’s absolution did not include those who mocked Christ on the Cross as just curious bystanders.
To Holy Mary this goings on where ineffable heartbreaking. To see her Son not only murdered, but also tortured in a unspeakable way.

If or not the Evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke where present, or saw the scenery from a distance, the Bible doesn’t tell. To think I had been there, sure I had fled the scene completely, just as you and most here couldn’t stand such hell on earth. John and Hol Mary’s love let them stay to the bitter end.

However. All of us are able to tell first hand of things we though didn’t witness personally, but still know everything in detail, as we are „Zeitzeugen“ contemporary witness.

Please mind how much time has elapsed between the original reports and the first copies of the finished Gospels. There where enough eyewitnesses of the time when it actually happened, who could doubt these reports, if there was any deviation. There was none! Even a lifetime is too short to falsify facts so many witnessed. If facts of second World War where falsified today, the protests wouldn’t allow it.

Life, death and resurrection of Jesus when He was 33, were recorded within say approx. 50 years or more by eye-witnesses, and there is no ancient controversy about the content of the Bible! Remember, if anyone would falsify the facts about the American Civil war, an outcry of protests would arise and that’s much longer behind us, than Christ’s ministry lay behind last living Apostle - John. One of our Church Fathers, Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, who died around 107 aD. is likely to have had contact to eyewitnesses of the crucifixion of Jesus.

But all that is not at all the point of this thread.

The point though is mentioned in the opening post repeatedly. Its SECULAR logic and research in Bible and Belief, which as posted, is a disgrace before God and the world. I said:

There are two different kinds of resurges in the Bible. The one of the Church doesn’t doubt, but it seeks to bring forward further proof of the absolute truth in the Gospel and it’s certifying and verifies the Gospel. Secular iogic and research in the Gospel plants, certifies and verifies doubts and „no, that wasn’t so - that’s a saga and folktale like Brer Rabbit and the briar patch or the Northern saga of Wotan!“
 
Last edited:
BrunoMaria said:
Yes of course St. John did refer to the lost in John 3. But I tried to say, that John did not refer to the lost under the Cross of Christ. Those lost who mocked the dying Jesus on the cross. John did not refer to these details the other Evangelists did, because they already had told us.
John, who other than the Synoptics left out secular details, and rather led our attentiveness solely on Christ’s Divinity, disregarding uttering and mutterings of the lost under the cross, who were not even aware that is was demons who gave them these words about the God in God, Light from Light, true God of true God right here.

These people John simply disregarded. To him they were not worth to be mentioned in this great hour, when Gods plan was finally fulfilled - God’s tremendous performance of Love to save us. John admitted no distraction of our line of vision upon God in God, Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
St. John emphasized Son of God vs Son of Man and what is needed to be saved, rather than specific people, except for for the Pharisees (e.g., John 8) and Judas (e.g., John 17).

He reports the words of Jesus:
John 3:7 Do not be amazed that I told you, ‘You must be born from above.’
John 5:21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also does the Son give life to whomever he wishes.
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.
Click to expand...
 
BartholomewB answered to me in a normal mail. But I thought that was across CAF and wondered, why my answer didn’t appear here.
Bartholomew rightly corrected me about the difference between RESURGE and RESEARCH ;-D
So I answered:

Ha - terribly funny.
to resurge is in real language auferstehen, whilst research in good old German is forschen and Forschung. Yeah, the secular Forschung makes atheists. Many depend on secular Forschung. Recently someone even stated this to me in a mail. He wrote (in German): Proper biblical Forschung is that what I relay on, for you can’t trust the so-called “Church” that’s full of Child-molesters!

Well, this guy is an academic idiot anyhow, and that opinion is more than wrong, his queer opinion is shared with a silly majority. Especially with the result of the 68-years. The majority that anyhow doesn’t believe in Jesus Christ, and hardly will pass that narrow door.

Of course when ever so celebrated people like the recently died Stephen Hawking announce THERE IS NO GOD, then it’s no wonder.

My problem is, that resurge and research sounds much alike, and I learned my very special English in a factory in Birmingham/England over 60years ago, working there as a sculptor. That was, when the dinosaurs still run around, and you had to be careful not to be eaten by them. Factory-English then is a wee bit different to normal English and a lot different to US-English ;-D

Yours
good oldme 😉
Thanks Bartholomew for sending me a normal mail! 🙂
 
Last edited:
Bruno, are you familiar with books such as The Eucharistic Words of Jesus by Joachim Jeremias and Paul Between Damascus and Antioch by Martin Hengel? In your view, are these examples of the acceptable or unacceptable kind of Bible research?
 
Ha, terribly funny! I thought you had written a personal mail, so I answered in the conviction it’s a PM. I only saw it’s not a PM, when my mail returned with the note - TOO LONG! So I lay a small part of it in here.

😃

Don’t bother about „My View“. My personal view doesn’t mean a thing.
One anyhow must be careful not to mistake own „views“ and thoughts with serious Christian research of our Church or authors who are serious Christians. Such in mind it’s very easy to differ between acceptable or unacceptable kind of Bible research?

Any „research“ elaboration etc. written by disbelievers, skeptics, gnostics and all who see the Church Jesus Christ founded on St. Peter in any refusing or even hostile way, is definitely inacceptable ab initio. I often came across such effusions, but put it away in disgust and anger without going any further.

The books you mentioned I don’t know, but their classification would be under the mentioned point of view very easy.

I myself wrote a book years ago -God, who is this? (Gott- wer ist das?)- but the publishing houses refused it - some of them with a very laudatory note, but all wrote SORRY, BUT RELIGIOUS BOOKS PRESENTLY DON’T SELL ENOUGH.
 
Last edited:
Your beef seems to be with academic study and biblical criticism. These disciplines are not intended as applications for spiritual or religious apologetics…but still they have made great contributions to theology, including Catholic theology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top