My Problems with Religion, but maybe I am just misinformed

[lemondiesel]

1. All Holy Books were written by man, which were not even true eye witnesses. How then, can we be so sure that they are accurate? I think we can all agree that oral traditions can be extremely subject to misinterpretations.
2. In Christianity, how are Churches funded? (Or you could just answer Catholism)
3. There are people who would die, even kill in the name of God.
4. If the afterlife is SOOOO amazing, why does one not kill themselves? God makes you suffer on Earth to be rewarded in heaven? What if you never get the opportunity to learn about God.
5. Some people say it is better to believe than not to believe, so just believe and then what do you have to lose. So God would rather have you just believe because you are scared of punishment? Where is the free will in that?
6. Without starting up a holy war (haha) I think it is terrible that Priest do things to children. If the Church asks for so much faith, even base your life around it, why do things like this take place? I’ve heard some say “Well its just a few bad apples,” but then what does this mean to the whole foundation of the Church? We could argue that it is possible that this sort of thing happens much more than the ones who are actually caught. How do we know which is a bad apple then?

I know some are pointed directly at Christianity, but for the record, I find myself more Catholic than anything. More like a Jeffersonian Religion

 

[catholictiger]

1. All Holy Books were written by man, which were not even true eye witnesses. How then, can we be so sure that they are accurate? I think we can all agree that oral traditions can be extremely subject to misinterpretations.

they are written by man you are right, but they are devinly inspired so if they are translated perfectly it is flawless but unfortantly we can’t so we run into problems

your also right about traditons it can be misinterpreted

this is why we have to study scripture one way and only one way

we must study scriptures in the light of sacred tradition and magisterial teaching

we must study tradtion in teh light of sacred scripture and magisterial teaching

and we must study magisterial teaching in the light of sacred tradition and sacred scripture

ill give a quick reasoning for thsi

if we only study scripture we are only getting a small portion of what jesus said, we didn’t record the life of jesus like they do in the court room where they document every single thing, scriptures only talk about the most important things in christ life. If you don’t believe me read the gospels it says not everything jesus did is included in this

so we must also bring in sacred tradtion becuase they will fill in the holes that would have been missed by what they didn’t write down, but they must not contradict scripture

and lastly we need an athurity which is the cahtolic church becuase every single person will have a different interpretation of scripture so we must have an authority on that scripture so we can have one universal truth.

1. In Christianity, how are Churches funded? (Or you could just answer Catholism)

by jesus when he visited the apostles in the lock room after his death and the holy spirit descended upon them.

1. There are people who would die, even kill in the name of God.

im not real sure about this ill let someone else clear this up for me. I have an idea how to explain this but it may not be the best way to

1. If the afterlife is SOOOO amazing, why does one not kill themselves? God makes you suffer on Earth to be rewarded in heaven? What if you never get the opportunity to learn about God.

if god never revels himself to you then you will actually go to heaven if you live a life of love that jesus had.

also you must be open to the will of God he has plans for you on this earth to bring people back to him if you just die just to go to heaven then you could be leaving hundreds or thousands maybe even millions of people behind to spend enternity in hell.

1. Some people say it is better to believe than not to believe, so just believe and then what do you have to lose. So God would rather have you just believe because you are scared of punishment? Where is the free will in that?

this is all about pascals wager i don’t know if catholics look highly on this arugument

but simple thing live a life of love, a kinda of love that Jesus had then you should be ok.

 

[Windfish]

Those are very good questions, and their answers would involve several pages worth of text!

I would like to help you, but I do not like advising others on things that I have not thoroughly studied for myself. My advice to you, in the mean time, is to be patient - rest assured, there are excellent answers to all of those questions, and I hope you don’t harden your heart to Christ just yet.

 

[davidv]

{snip}4. If the afterlife is SOOOO amazing, why does one not kill themselves? God makes you suffer on Earth to be rewarded in heaven? What if you never get the opportunity to learn about God.{snip}

This life, when lived in total freedom to love God and neighbor is also SOOOO amazing. St. Paul writes about being torn between leaving for heaven, and staying in this life in God’s service.

 

[lizaanne]

1. All Holy Books were written by man, which were not even true eye witnesses. How then, can we be so sure that they are accurate? I think we can all agree that oral traditions can be extremely subject to misinterpretations.

We believe the Bible to be Divinely Inspired. This removes the possibility of error. At some point some things have to come down to faith and trust.

1. In Christianity, how are Churches funded? (Or you could just answer Catholism)

Just like every non-profit organization - by the generosity of the believers.

1. There are people who would die, even kill in the name of God.

This certainly is not to be blamed on God. Men will do evil things - it does not mean that God is evil or the belief in God is evil. It only means that there are men (I use the term inclusive of women) who will turn away from God and toward evil, using any excuse they can find.

Dying and killing in the name of God are different actions though. There are many who would die to protect the Church, and many have throughout the centuries. They are martyrs for the Faith. Killing however, if done for unjust reasons, is not acceptable. The “just war” teaching is something you would want to pursue in a separate discussion, or do a search on the forum for previous discussions on this topic.

1. If the afterlife is SOOOO amazing, why does one not kill themselves? God makes you suffer on Earth to be rewarded in heaven? What if you never get the opportunity to learn about God.

Because suicide is a sinful action. We are to respect our bodies which are made in the image and likeness of God. God does not “make” anyone suffer. There is suffering by the very fallen nature of the human species, due to original sin.

Those who never have the opportunity to learn about God are believed to be at His mercy on their last day, and we know that our God will judge their souls according to the lives they have lived.

1. Some people say it is better to believe than not to believe, so just believe and then what do you have to lose. So God would rather have you just believe because you are scared of punishment? Where is the free will in that?

No - it is not believing because of being scared of punishment, it is believing because not believing is an option as well. They are both acts of the will. If there is a possibility of being wrong if you don’t believe, then what does the belief cost you? Nothing. It’s not a scare tactic, it is just following the logical reasoning of the argument.

1. Without starting up a holy war (haha) I think it is terrible that Priest do things to children. If the Church asks for so much faith, even base your life around it, why do things like this take place? I’ve heard some say “Well its just a few bad apples,” but then what does this mean to the whole foundation of the Church? We could argue that it is possible that this sort of thing happens much more than the ones who are actually caught. How do we know which is a bad apple then?

The Church is the Bride of Christ. She is perfect and flawless - yes, there are bad people who do bad things, this is our fallen nature as human beings. But just because SOME people do bad things does not mean that what Christ left us here on earth, this beautiful Church he began with His disciples, is flawed. It is not. We have to pray for each other constantly, and especially for our priests.

As for “why do things like this take place” - it is because evil will strike at the heart of the faithful the hardest. Our priests bring us Christ in the Eucharist - with no priests, there is no Mass, with no Mass, there is no Eucharist. Satan knows this, and so he will try to strike at the heart of our faith by tempting priests to do horrible and evil things. Some will succumb to this, most do not. But it does not mean that all priests are bad and evil, or that ordaining women or doing away with celibacy would change this one bit. Satan will always try to find ways to undermine God, it’s is just his nature to do this. And we as followers of Christ need to be aware of this and fight evil where ever it may be, and pray for those who are in Satan’s sights.

I know some are pointed directly at Christianity, but for the record, I find myself more Catholic than anything. More like a Jeffersonian Religion

Keep asking questions - the more you learn, the more you will see that the fullness of Truth lies in the Catholic Church, and nowhere else.

God bless!!

~Liza

 

[Barbkw]

No offense, but multiple question posts give me a headache. So difficult to read through.

Please come here often, but please, one question at a time

 

[JDaniel]

1. All Holy Books were written by man, which were not even true eye witnesses. How then, can we be so sure that they are accurate? I think we can all agree that oral traditions can be extremely subject to misinterpretations.

Which “Holy Books” in particular? Which ones were written by a man? These are not ubiquitous questions; they are germane to a proper answer.

1. In Christianity, how are Churches funded? (Or you could just answer Catholicism)

Well, the Catholic Churches are funded by their parishioners and well wishers.

1. There are people who would die, even kill in the name of God.

Far more will kill in the name of Satan, or, in the name of nobody.

1. If the afterlife is SOOOO amazing, why does one not kill themselves? God makes you suffer on Earth to be rewarded in heaven? What if you never get the opportunity to learn about God.

This is a good question. Because God told us not to?!

1. Some people say it is better to believe than not to believe, so just believe and then what do you have to lose. So God would rather have you just believe because you are scared of punishment? Where is the free will in that?

Are you a churched person? If you are, is it due to fear?

1. Without starting up a holy war (haha) I think it is terrible that Priest do things to children. If the Church asks for so much faith, even base your life around it, why do things like this take place? I’ve heard some say “Well its just a few bad apples,” but then what does this mean to the whole foundation of the Church? We could argue that it is possible that this sort of thing happens much more than the ones who are actually caught. How do we know which is a bad apple then?

Actually, as it stands, the numbers are pretty low for the Catholic Church. Around 1.5% to 2.0% of gay Priests. I call them “gay” because, in reality, the kids that were molested, were, 95% of them, over the age of 13. That’s no longer pedophilia. That’s homosexuality, “predatory” homosexuality. The numbers are all over the web so, I’m not making it up.

Now, the Church is not made up of Saints and Saints only. We’re all merely people. Good ones and bad ones. So, bad is only worldly and human. But, I’d much rather have my kids in Catholic School than any where else!!

I know some are pointed directly at Christianity, but for the record, I find myself more Catholic than anything. More like a Jeffersonian Religion

I’m not sure if I know what you mean by that last sentence?

God bless you and your search,
jd

 

[Katholish]

1. All Holy Books were written by man, which were not even true eye witnesses. How then, can we be so sure that they are accurate? I think we can all agree that oral traditions can be extremely subject to misinterpretations.

I’ll just stay with the first question since there is so much that can be said.

The Bible, especially the New Testament, was almost entirely written by eye-witnesses. Matthew and John were two of the 12 Apostles and wrote Gospels. All of the Episitles are basically written by St. Paul, but they cover the theology and discipline of the Early Church more than the actual events of Christ’s life (so St. Paul addresses what he was a witness to, and does not really cover the facts that he did not witness). St. Mark witnessed many of the events of the Gospel, but as the campanion of St. Peter, his Gospel is really a record of St. Peter’s experiences. St. Luke was unique in that he approached the topic as an actual historian. He was not a witness, but he went and interviewed the witnesses to compile an accurate account.

Some of the very basic claims of the New Testament about the life of Christ are also confirmed by other non-Christian contemporary historians like the Jewish historian Josephus or the Roman historian Tacitus. Even modern textual criticism agrees with the approximate date of composition for the Gospels.

Even if you dismiss the claim that the New Testament is the inspired Word of God, it has some value purely as a historical work which largely verifies the claims of the Early Christian Church.

The Roman world at the time was a very stable society and on the whole very well educated. There are many many writers on the first few centuries of the Catholic Church which corroberate the facts portrayed in the Bible and elaborate upon the theology of the Early Church. You even have the widespread historical record of miracles occuring all throughout thte Roman empire as a great multitude of martyrs were cruelly put to death by the state.

 

[lemondiesel]

The Bible, especially the New Testament, was almost entirely written by eye-witnesses. Matthew and John were two of the 12 Apostles and wrote Gospels.

They are assumed to bewritten by Matthew and John. Started most likely, and finished by others. Why else would the 4 Gospels not be exactly similar?

Some of the very basic claims of the New Testament about the life of Christ are also confirmed by other non-Christian contemporary historians like the Jewish historian Josephus or the Roman historian Tacitus.

Yes, but Josephus also disagreed with many Old Testament stories, example being the Exodus.

Even if you dismiss the claim that the New Testament is the inspired Word of God, it has some value purely as a historical work which largely verifies the claims of the Early Christian Church.

Yes, but there are many doctrines that are taught by the Church that were not even in the Bible!! Are we just suppose to assume the Pope was divinely influenced to make these rules? Seems very corrupt to me.

 

[lemondiesel]

Which “Holy Books” in particular? Which ones were written by a man? These are not ubiquitous questions; they are germane to a proper answer.

The Bible was the main one I was thinking of. We can say the Koran because Mohammad was not a God, just a man spoken to by Allah. So how is that different to the Bible?

Far more will kill in the name of Satan, or, in the name of nobody.

Muslims?

Are you a churched person? If you are, is it due to fear?

Not at all, I do not fear anything the Church teaches as “evils” if I do not participate. I think God would rather have someone actually choose to live good, then someone only act good because of fear of punishment. Hopefully we can agree on that statement.

Now, the Church is not made up of Saints and Saints only. We’re all merely people. Good ones and bad ones. So, bad is only worldly and human. But, I’d much rather have my kids in Catholic School than any where else!!.

As I completely agree. It is always smart to have your child at least introduced to religion, because you never know someday they might need that influence on their life.

 

[Windfish]

They are assumed to bewritten by Matthew and John. Started most likely, and finished by others. Why else would the 4 Gospels not be exactly similar?

The authors of the Gospels do not explicitly identify themselves, but there is strong external and internal evidence for their authorship. The earliest extant manuscripts are ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and the early Church is unanimous in affirming this despite writing independently of each other. Men such as St. Irenaeus and St. Polycarp were pupils of the apostle John and were, I think, in a position to verify the authorship of the Gospels. If one insists, though, on a deceptive conspiracy on the part of the Church, Why not choose more esteemed apostles like Peter to ascribe authorship of the Gospels? Why name Mark and Luke, neither of them apostles, at all? I think these are good questions.

The internal evidence only supports the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Matthew writes like Matthew would; Mark writes like Mark would; Luke writes like Luke would; and John writes like John would. I am currently learning about this, so I will refrain from going into further detail, but this is a highly interesting topic, and I suggest reading more up on it.

This is lost on people, but the traditional view has never ever been shown to be wrong. Time and time again, new discoveries are made that support what was previously thought to be wrong or wholly made up. The case against the traditional authorship of the Gospels is highly circumstantial, and, well, the circumstances change every decade or so with the advent of a new discovery or a new methodology.

Christianity has been subjected to more historical scrutiny than anything else, really. It’s actually quite amazing just how much this religion has been put through the rounds! And it has never been shown to be wrong. Lies, myths, etc. they all unravel with time, but that’s not what we see with Christianity - we see a remarkable resilience. By contrast, I highly encourage you to apply the same scrutiny to other religions like Islam. I mean, WOW, I am just learning about this, but it is ridiculous how the two religions compare with one another in terms of their histories. Islam has been shielded from the scrutinizing inquiry of the west, and I don’t think it would have survived very long, here.

Obviously, this is just a small write-up, and you can read many volumes of books on this topic, but I hope this begins to help.

 

[Katholish]

They are assumed to bewritten by Matthew and John. Started most likely, and finished by others. Why else would the 4 Gospels not be exactly similar?

The three Synoptic Gospels are very similar, and John just takes a different approach because his was most likely written last.

Yes, but Josephus also disagreed with many Old Testament stories, example being the Exodus.

Josephus was really only in a position to be authoritative on the events of his time, such as the Jewish rebellion and the events that occured during the life of Christ. If it is true that he questioned the veracity of the Scriptures, he really lacked solid evidence upon which to do so.

Yes, but there are many doctrines that are taught by the Church that were not even in the Bible!! Are we just suppose to assume the Pope was divinely influenced to make these rules? Seems very corrupt to me.

All of the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church are taken from what we call the Deposit of Faith which are the teachings of the Sacred Scriptures, Christ Himself, and the verbal preaching of the Apostles (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). Many teachings cannot be explicitly found in Scripture alone, but the Church does not exactly depend on a 2,000 year-old verbal tradition. The fact is that most of the teachings of the Apostles were in some way recorded by the Fathers of the Church writing in the first few centuries of the Church’s history. They stand as evidence of the teachings of the Early Church.

The Church does not claim that the pope receives Divine inspiration. In fact, the Church explicitly states that there can be no inventions of doctrine, and that the role of the Magisterium (the Church’s teaching authority) is to hand down and explain what was delivered to the Church before the death of the last Apostle.

 

[lemondiesel]

The authors of the Gospels do not explicitly identify themselves, but there is strong external and internal evidence for their authorship. The earliest extant manuscripts are ascribed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and the early Church is unanimous in affirming this despite writing independently of each other. Men such as St. Irenaeus and St. Polycarp were pupils of the apostle John and were, I think, in a position to verify the authorship of the Gospels. If one insists, though, on a deceptive conspiracy on the part of the Church, Why not choose more esteemed apostles like Peter to ascribe authorship of the Gospels? Why name Mark and Luke, neither of them apostles, at all? I think these are good questions.

The internal evidence only supports the traditional authorship of the Gospels. Matthew writes like Matthew would; Mark writes like Mark would; Luke writes like Luke would; and John writes like John would. I am currently learning about this, so I will refrain from going into further detail, but this is a highly interesting topic, and I suggest reading more up on it.

If I remember my schooling correctly, John is unproven to even be John. The book has a much different style than the others, and some biblical historians even suggest it could be a women. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could easily just be common names, so the Gospels could be “common” men experiences the presence of Jesus.

I can type more on this subject if you would like, I just tried to keep this short and to the point.

 

[lemondiesel]

The three Synoptic Gospels are very similar, and John just takes a different approach because his was most likely written last.

Josephus was really only in a position to be authoritative on the events of his time, such as the Jewish rebellion and the events that occured during the life of Christ. If it is true that he questioned the veracity of the Scriptures, he really lacked solid evidence upon which to do so.

All of the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church are taken from what we call the Deposit of Faith which are the teachings of the Sacred Scriptures, Christ Himself, and the verbal preaching of the Apostles (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). Many teachings cannot be explicitly found in Scripture alone, but the Church does not exactly depend on a 2,000 year-old verbal tradition. The fact is that most of the teachings of the Apostles were in some way recorded by the Fathers of the Church writing in the first few centuries of the Church’s history. They stand as evidence of the teachings of the Early Church.

The Church does not claim that the pope receives Divine inspiration. In fact, the Church explicitly states that there can be no inventions of doctrine, and that the role of the Magisterium (the Church’s teaching authority) is to hand down and explain what was delivered to the Church before the death of the last Apostle.

Without saying what I just posted above, yes John has a much different style. There is evidence to suggest that the Gospels could have been, at the earliest, written around 50-60 BCE. This does allow for witnesses to write, but then we must take into account the gap of time between each Gospel. This is why we can debate that they were started by one man and finished by another, or others.

Yes, but if you are going to take Josephus’ word for events in his time, then we should be able to take his word for the OT stories.

So what about Mary’s assumption? Was it in the Bible? I am not complaining about the words and stories themselves, I am complaining on calling them inspired by the Holy Spirit. Why? Have you ever felt like you’ve had a moment of complete understanding? You almost feel compelled to write it down because you think its just the answer to a problem. Couldn’t this situation have happened with the Bible? (side not, I am not questioning Jesus’ existence either)

 

[Windfish]

If I remember my schooling correctly, John is unproven to even be John. The book has a much different style than the others, and some biblical historians even suggest it could be a women. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could easily just be common names, so the Gospels could be “common” men experiences the presence of Jesus.

I can type more on this subject if you would like, I just tried to keep this short and to the point.

Whether you know it or not, this “short” post has a lot of threads in it that would require pages of text to unravel! There is no shortage of theories on this subject, so there very well may be some biblical scholars who do suggest female authorship, but I would be highly skeptical of such a suggestion given, among other things, the literacy of females in the first century.

I think you are privileging outlandish theories uncritically. What you are suggesting is some kind of vague abstraction as an explanation for the Gospels that simply does not work. Frankly, it is weird for countless reasons. I wouldn’t even know how to begin to respond to it.

I’ll be away, so I won’t be able to respond, so I’ll leave with the same advice as before: be patient - there are answers to your wonderful questions, and I hope you find them.

 

[lemondiesel]

Whether you know it or not, this “short” post has a lot of threads in it that would require pages of text to unravel! There is no shortage of theories on this subject, so there very well may be some biblical scholars who do suggest female authorship, but I would be highly skeptical of such a suggestion given, among other things, the literacy of females in the first century.

I think you are privileging outlandish theories uncritically. What you are suggesting is some kind of vague abstraction as an explanation for the Gospels that simply does not work. Frankly, it is weird for countless reasons. I wouldn’t even know how to begin to respond to it.

I’ll be away, so I won’t be able to respond, so I’ll leave with the same advice as before: be patient - there are answers to your wonderful questions, and I hope you find them.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut and advice. Thank you! I would also like to recommend, if you ever have free time, to read the book “The Bible Unearthed”. The title seems very misleading. It is not trying to disprove the Bible, it is trying to find an accurate date for when the Bible was first written. That book deals with the OT. There is also a book called “Jesus, A Revolutionary Biography” by John Crossan, which is an** excellent** book that offers another view point for the Gospels.

 

[fhansen]

1. All Holy Books were written by man, which were not even true eye witnesses. How then, can we be so sure that they are accurate? I think we can all agree that oral traditions can be extremely subject to misinterpretations.

Of course, the truth can be contained-or not -in any human work. And the problem of misinterpretation is one reason the Church recognizes the need for a Magisterium.

1. In Christianity, how are Churches funded? (Or you could just answer Catholism)

Churches are funded primarily by people who love their Church.

1. There are people who would die, even kill in the name of God.

To die in the name of God-or to be killed for believing in Him-is consistent with the gospel. To kill in the name of God is not.

1. If the afterlife is SOOOO amazing, why does one not kill themselves? God makes you suffer on Earth to be rewarded in heaven? What if you never get the opportunity to learn about God.

Eternal life begins in the here and now-and we’re not to negate it whichever side of the pearly gates we’re on-that would be God’s job.

1. Some people say it is better to believe than not to believe, so just believe and then what do you have to lose. So God would rather have you just believe because you are scared of punishment? Where is the free will in that?

In Catholicism, faith alone is not sufficient anyway.
**“If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.” **St Basil

1. Without starting up a holy war (haha) I think it is terrible that Priest do things to children. If the Church asks for so much faith, even base your life around it, why do things like this take place? I’ve heard some say “Well its just a few bad apples,” but then what does this mean to the whole foundation of the Church? We could argue that it is possible that this sort of thing happens much more than the ones who are actually caught. How do we know which is a bad apple then?

It’s due to a Church doctrine: Original Sin. There’s a principle contained in the following verse:
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." Matt 23:1-3

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

They are assumed to bewritten by Matthew and John. Started most likely, and finished by others. Why else would the 4 Gospels not be exactly similar?

Why would we expect four documents written by four authors to four different target audiences to be exactly the same?

Yes, but there are many doctrines that are taught by the Church that were not even in the Bible!! Are we just suppose to assume the Pope was divinely influenced to make these rules? Seems very corrupt to me.

Your phrase “not even in the Bible” suggests that you’re starting from a sola scriptura mindset. Catholics have never taught that all doctrine needs to be found in the Bible. That’s not what the Bible was written for.

What do you mean by “to make these rules”? Rules and doctrines aren’t the same thing, but you seem to be using them interchangeably.

Thanks!

 

[lemondiesel]

Why would we expect four documents written by four authors to four different target audiences to be exactly the same?

Well, these four authors are supposed “eye witnesses” to the miracles and teachings, and most importantly the older ages of Jesus. If all four stories do not match up, then how can we conclude them to be “eye witnesses.” Are you implying that Jesus did certain things infront of Matthew, Mark and Luke, but not the same things infront of John? lol

Your phrase “not even in the Bible” suggests that you’re starting from a sola scriptura mindset. Catholics have never taught that all doctrine needs to be found in the Bible. That’s not what the Bible was written for.

What do you mean by “to make these rules”? Rules and doctrines aren’t the same thing, but you seem to be using them interchangeably.

If its not in the Bible, then how do we specifically know that Jesus taught it? Isn’t Christianity based on the the life and death of Jesus and his coming again? If Jesus didn’t say certain things in the Bible, then why does the Pope, a mere mortal, have power to change what is believed?

Isn’t the Assumption of Mary a doctrine belief, yet it is not specifically mentioned in the scripture? My point being, does one have to believe in this teaching, or is it left up to the believer? I mean, it seems like a very important belief haha

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Well, these four authors are supposed “eye witnesses” to the miracles and teachings, and most importantly the older ages of Jesus. If all four stories do not match up, then how can we conclude them to be “eye witnesses.” Are you implying that Jesus did certain things infront of Matthew, Mark and Luke, but not the same things infront of John? lol

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

If its not in the Bible, then how do we specifically know that Jesus taught it? Isn’t Christianity based on the the life and death of Jesus and his coming again? If Jesus didn’t say certain things in the Bible, then why does the Pope, a mere mortal, have power to change what is believed?

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.

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

Isn’t the Assumption of Mary a doctrine belief, yet it is not specifically mentioned in the scripture? My point being, does one have to believe in this teaching, or is it left up to the believer? I mean, it seems like a very important belief haha

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.