My Problems with Religion, but maybe I am just misinformed

[lemondiesel]

No. But each author was trying to evangelize a certain area at a certain time, and that is reflected in the particular things that they chose to write about.

Can you explain what you mean by a certain area at a certain time? If they were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life, they must have traveled together. Or maybe, these writers could have heard different oral stories?

Can I ask you to be more specific here? Do you think you have a substantive contradiction between the gospels that can’t be reconciled?

No, its just speculation based on works that I have read.

Jesus didn’t teach anything in the Bible. Jesus taught his disciples. Some of what he taught them was written down and became Sacred Scripture. Some of it was passed on through the Catholic Church’s unbroken line of apostolic succession, and became Sacred Tradition.

Okay, I will acknowledge your answer and shift for a second because this brings up another important issue of mine. Why did Simon-Peter become the leader of the Christian movement after Jesus. Was he not a persecuter of Christians prior to becoming a disciple?

The Pope does not have the power to change what is believed. He has never done so and will never do so.

Isn’t this Papal Infallibility?

My favorite quote from 1075 by Pope Gregory VII, “That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness”

That is a dogmatic belief, so it’s not optional. But it’s also not new. It was declared in the 20th (sorry - I originally wrote 19th by mistake) century, but we have records of it having been taught as far back as the third or fourth century.

Why does it seem like such an important belief? Why are you laughing? I am confused.

Let me explain, hopefully not sounding too much like an idiot

Now, there are already two stories of assumption in the Bible, Elijah and can’t remember the other off the top of my head. Why are these assumptions so imporant that they are included in the Bible, yet Mary’s is not specifically mentioned? Can we agree that the NT writers had access to OT books? If they knew that these assumptions were recorded, why leave Mary out?

I laugh because Mary is the Virgin Mother of Christ. If she is so important, her assumption into heaven must be included. If it is not, then how can we even agree that it even happened?!

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Can you explain what you mean by a certain area at a certain time? If they were eyewitnesses to Jesus’ life, they must have traveled together. Or maybe, these writers could have heard different oral stories?

Sure. Matthew was written to Jews, around year 60-68.
Mark was written to Romans, around year 64 or 67.
Luke is addressed to a particular individual, for the explicit purpose of providing historical data.
John was written to Greeks, in the 90s.

Dates pulled from Catholic Encyclopedia. I’m no Bible scholar. The point is, each of the writers had a particular audience, and they emphasized certain things accordingly. Matthew leans heavily on Messianic prophecy and Jewish customs, which would be meaningless to a reader in Rome. John talks of the Logos, in an appeal to Platonic (Greek) philosophy.

No, its just speculation based on works that I have read.

I understand the difficulty in providing specifics, but I would urge you to try and do so. It’s difficult to engage very meaningfully when we’re talking in generics.

Okay, I will acknowledge your answer and shift for a section because this brings up an important issue of mine. Why did Simon-Peter become the leader of the Christian movement after Jesus. Was he not a persecuter of Christians prior to becoming a disciple?

No, Peter was never a persecutor. You are probably thinking of Paul. The reason he became a leader (not the leader) is that he was converted to Christ and taught by the apostles.

Let me explain, hopefully not sounding too much like an idiot

Now, there are already two stories of assumption in the Bible, Elijah and can’t remember the other off the top of my head. Why are these assumptions so imporant that they are included in the Bible, yet Mary’s is not specifically mentioned? Can we agree that the NT writers had access to OT books? If they knew that these assumptions were recorded, why leave Mary out?

I laugh because Mary is the Virgin Mother of Christ. If she is so important, her assumption into heaven must be included. If it is not, then how can we even agree that it even happened?!

Enoch is the other prophet you’re thinking of.

Again, the main problem here is that you’re assuming that the Bible contains everything important. The Bible was never intended to be the sole repository of divine revelation. Remember what scripture says: “the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15) The Church, not the Bible, is the foundation of truth.

It seems like you’re saying that if Mary’s assumption into heaven were in the Bible, then you would believe it. I submit that unless you accept the authority of the Church, you would have no reason to accept the accuracy of the Bible. And if one accepts the authority of the Church with regards to creating the Bible, then one can accept the authority of the Church with regards to Mary’s assumption. Both the Bible and Mary’s assumption rest on the same foundation - the Church of the living God.

 

[Windfish]

May I suggest something else really quickly: it is a mistake to judge ancient historiography by modern standards. Today, it is common sense to arrange events in history chronologically, but this was not so back then. Ancient historians arranged events in history along very different criteria, such as theme and importance. This explains the apparent differences between the Gospels, but I do emphasize “apparent.”