the bible

[smerritt08]

how can you believe the bible when it is only sometimes suppored by history, written by man usually many years after the incident being written about happened, has a different number of books depending of which religion you choose and takes many of it’s core believes from pagan religions? most notably the virgin birth. christianity is not the only one that claims this and in fact, other religions that claim a virgin birth pre-date christianity by a few hundred years to a few thousand. How do you reconcile that?

 

[Windfish]

Uh, welcome to the boards. Interesting that you should bring up the “pagan parallels.” I’ve been researching the alleged pagan parallels recently, and they’ve all been either highly suspect or totally fabricated. For instance, the legends surrounding Alexander’s virgin birth are commonly cited by detractors such as yourself, but they don’t realize that those legends arose three-hundred years after the Gospels. Christianity became so popular that pagan “religions” copied Christianity, not the other way around. And such facts are present in nearly all of the alleged pagan parallels. The popular claims from detractors about Mithra and Egyptian mythology are all pretty much bunk.

And “only sometimes” supported by history? You’ll have to go into a deeper discussion on that because studies I’ve read have shown the remarkable historical accuracy of the Bible. For example, for centuries, many of the tribes and peoples talked about in the Bible were unknown to historians and considered them to be fiction until archeologists unearthed conclusive evidence. The Hittites are an example I’ve been reading up on.

And, yeah, you can say that some or a lot of what is written in scripture was written after the fact… but such has been the case of all historical ancient documents. What comes to us about Socrates, for example, was written hundreds and hundreds of years after he died by people who never knew him. What comes to us about Jesus, however, was written only 20-60 years after he rose to Heaven, which is remarkably close for ancient history and speaks to just how significant this figure’s life was.

The different number of books isn’t really too troublesome, it’s more of a theological difference more than a problem that has to do with believing their content.

Speaking for myself, direct experience and intuition along with modern miracles from Heaven have corroborated the truth of the Christian story and have helped me become more confident.

 

[quasimodo]

how can you believe the bible when it is only sometimes suppored by history,

You have the gravely mistaken idea that history has always been understood the way we pretend to think of it today. The modern “scientific” approach to history is relatively new (and a fiction in any case). The human authors of scripture were far more interested in truth** than in what happened, who did it, when and why. We pretend that we can know these things with near scientific certainty, but we can’t.

written by man usually many years after the incident being written about happened,

They were a culture of oral history and a little research will show that cultures that maintain their history orally are remarkably accurate.

has a different number of books depending of which religion you choose

That points more to the nature of man than to the nature of scripture.

and takes many of it’s core believes from pagan religions? most notably the virgin birth. christianity is not the only one that claims this and in fact, other religions that claim a virgin birth pre-date christianity by a few hundred years to a few thousand. How do you reconcile that?
**
So what? That a pagan culture had a thought that preceded Christ proves nothing that you want it to. The eye of the octopus is remarkably similar to that of humans. Convergent evolution. Doesn’t mean we are descended from the the same tree. And a little inspection will show that the similarities are really quite superficial.**

 

[quasimodo]

more re: history.

People used to scoff at the bible because they could not find Pontius Pilate in the “historical record” … until they did. And that has happened over and over and over.

 

[JohnCS]

how can you believe the bible when it is only sometimes suppored by history, written by man usually many years after the incident being written about happened, has a different number of books depending of which religion you choose and takes many of it’s core believes from pagan religions? most notably the virgin birth. christianity is not the only one that claims this and in fact, other religions that claim a virgin birth pre-date christianity by a few hundred years to a few thousand. How do you reconcile that?

There is only one true Bible, the others that have different amounts of books in them are obviously missing out on some of the truth. So, I sometimes say the same thing to protestants about the Bibles they use. I don’t understand how they can put so much faith in a book that history shows has been edited and changed from the original that had been around for 1200 years or so before the changes. There are a couple of answers to your other question, but I am no expert and I’m sure that with some honest searching you can find better more informed answers than I can give, but here it goes anyway.
First, how often do you see a new movie that has nothing in common with any other movie ever made? I think you will be hard pressed to find any, and movies have only been around for 80-90 years or so. The history of human beings is 6000 some years, do you really think that with 6000 years there can be anything truly new that has absoluetly nothing in common with something else? Just because Christianity has something in common with somone elses belief does not mean that it can’t still be true. Seconed, the Catholic Church teaches that there is some element of God’s truth in almost all religions, some have more than others, and the Catholic Church has the whole truth, but every religion has at least a sliver. I think that teaching comes from the idea that every civilization had some form of deity or idea of God, why would the idea of a God be so universal unless we as humans are programmed to search Him out. God also spoke to the Prophets of the Bible hundreds of years before Christs birth and they were fortelling a Virgin birth, how do you know that the religions that you speak of did not get the idea from the Jewish Prophets?

 

[FightingFat]

how can you believe the bible when it is only sometimes suppored by history, written by man usually many years after the incident being written about happened, has a different number of books depending of which religion you choose and takes many of it’s core believes from pagan religions? most notably the virgin birth. christianity is not the only one that claims this and in fact, other religions that claim a virgin birth pre-date christianity by a few hundred years to a few thousand. How do you reconcile that?

You are obviously labouring under a number of misapprehensions about what we Catholics believe about the Bible, and about Sacred Scripture itself. Perhaps before you confront Catholics with what you think we have wrong, you might be better off finding out some more?

You could start here: vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

 

[smerritt08]

“You have the gravely mistaken idea that history has always been understood the way we pretend to think of it today.”

I have no such mistaken ideas about history at all. In fact, quite the opposite. I think you’ll find many errors and misreporting in the history of the past 100 years much less the last 5000 or so.

“The human authors of scripture were far more interested in truth than in what happened, who did it, when and why.”

I have many doubts about that. Human nature now was human nature then and that nature is to preserve history to show your own personal belief or idea in the best light and ignore the rest.

"has a different number of books depending of which religion you choose

That points more to the nature of man than to the nature of scripture."

Exactly. If we can’t even decide on how many books to put in the main book of the religion, that makes what’s in those books even MORE suspect.

Windfish, I’d like to hear about these modern miracles you speak of

 

[Myqyl]

how can you believe the bible when it is only sometimes suppored by history, written by man usually many years after the incident being written about happened, has a different number of books depending of which religion you choose and takes many of it’s core believes from pagan religions? most notably the virgin birth. christianity is not the only one that claims this and in fact, other religions that claim a virgin birth pre-date christianity by a few hundred years to a few thousand. How do you reconcile that?

Hi Smerritt )

Have you actually read the Bible with an open mind? When I was an Athiest I was certain it was the most bogus excuse for a con-artist’s brochere ever devised… Then I actually read it…

Now I’m Catholic

God bless

Mike

 

[smerritt08]

“Catholic Church has the whole truth”

Ha. I needed a good laugh today. thanks. What makes you so sure about this? Because last time I checked, everybody thinks they have the whole truth. And since Catholics aren’t mentioned in the bible as the sole carrier of truth, I’m guessing a man came up with that idea. Just like a man came up with the idea of Buddism. hmmm

 

[smerritt08]

yes mike, i have read it. I was born and raised in church. that would also be the reason I’m no longer in church and consider myself a deist

 

[quasimodo]

“You have the gravely mistaken idea that history has always been understood the way we pretend to think of it today.”

I have no such mistaken ideas about history at all. In fact, quite the opposite. I think you’ll find many errors and misreporting in the history of the past 100 years much less the last 5000 or so.

“The human authors of scripture were far more interested in truth than in what happened, who did it, when and why.”

I have many doubts about that. Human nature now was human nature then and that nature is to preserve history to show your own personal belief or idea in the best light and ignore the rest.

"has a different number of books depending of which religion you choose

That points more to the nature of man than to the nature of scripture."

Exactly. If we can’t even decide on how many books to put in the main book of the religion, that makes what’s in those books even MORE suspect.

Windfish, I’d like to hear about these modern miracles you speak of

What it appears that you misunderstand is the all the ancient authors (worldwide) had no interest whatsoever in reporting history in the way we believe we can do it today. The current idea about what history is and how it can be reported is only a couple hundred years old. It is not valid to try to read scripture as we would read a modern history book and find it lacking. You are criticizing an orange for not being apple enough. Having said that, it is by far the most accurate ancient “history” text that we have from the period portrayed.

The number of books is well established. Years ago some began to dispute the canon for political and psychological reasons. Also you make to much of the differences by far. There really aren’t any profound theological differences that arise from the canon.

You think that they only preserved what they wanted, what put their ideas in the best light. A superficial glance might look like that, but it is a painfully honest book.

 

[smerritt08]

really this is a ridiculous disscusion to begin with. people that believe the bible to be the truth will find any reason to make it so. faith they say. can someone remind me what the definition of faith is again? the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen maybe? myself, i like a little hard evidence to go with my beliefs and i have yet to see any convincing enough to sway me.

 

[JohnCS]

“Catholic Church has the whole truth”

Ha. I needed a good laugh today. thanks. What makes you so sure about this? Because last time I checked, everybody thinks they have the whole truth. And since Catholics aren’t mentioned in the bible as the sole carrier of truth, I’m guessing a man came up with that idea. Just like a man came up with the idea of Buddism. hmmm

Sorry, I should have been warned by the tone of your original post that you were not here looking for answers, but instead looking to argue.

Technically, the Bible does say that the Catholic Church has the whole truth. Jesus says that he is the Truth, he then founds the Catholic Church and says that he will be with the Church for forever. From Saint Peter to Pope Benedict XV1, the Catholic church has been the Mystical Body of Christ and therefore is the capital “T” Truth. The scriptural quotes for this can be found in many other threads, and because they are not the point of this thread we don’t need to go there. You can say that 2 + 2 = 5 and Joe Schmoe can say that 2 + 2 = 3, and both can claim that they are right. That does not make me wrong when I say that 2 + 2 = 4 . Budists, Muslims, athiests can all say what they want, it doesn’t make it any less true that the Catholic Church has the whole Truth.

 

[JohnCS]

really this is a ridiculous disscusion to begin with. people that believe the bible to be the truth will find any reason to make it so. faith they say. can someone remind me what the definition of faith is again? the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen maybe? myself, i like a little hard evidence to go with my beliefs and i have yet to see any convincing enough to sway me.

Hahaha, you started the discussion… then you say that the discussion is rediculous. If you have your preconcieved notions about what is rediculous and what is not, don’t post the question.

 

[Rolltide]

really this is a ridiculous disscusion to begin with. people that believe the bible to be the truth will find any reason to make it so. faith they say. can someone remind me what the definition of faith is again? the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen maybe? myself, i like a little hard evidence to go with my beliefs and i have yet to see any convincing enough to sway me.

Well, do you believe in metaphysics, which, in part, studies things that are known to exist but are in no way provable? Some examples:

Let’s say last night I had a dream that I was Superman and I saved Washington DC from the clutches of Lex Luthor. Can you prove it? Yet, do you have any reason to doubt that I indeed had such a dream?

I love my wife. I love my parents. I love my nephew. Can you scientifically prove it? Which physical formula distills the type and amount of love I have for them into a known quantity? Sure, I can demonstrate it through my actions, but that certainly isn’t scientific proof of my love. Yet, do you have any reason to doubt it?

All of these beliefs come down to faith. Whether you like it or not, faith is a constant and essential part of our lives. There are many things that should not be discounted simply because there is no scientific way to address their existence.

 

[smerritt08]

First of all, Jesus didn’t found any church much less the catholic church. And with the long, corrupt history is has, I have my doubts about there being much truth to the whole thing either. And you use math in your example. math you can prove - religion you cannot

 

[smerritt08]

sure, faith is a good thing is small quanities. like if you’re looking for a job, you’d have faith you’d find one. But to build an entire religion on it? scandelous

 

[JohnCS]

First of all, Jesus didn’t found any church much less the catholic church. And with the long, corrupt history is has, I have my doubts about there being much truth to the whole thing either. And you use math in your example. math you can prove - religion you cannot

Mathew 16 “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (founding)

Again, there are 3 or 4 other “you can’t prove God/religion” posts going on right now if you want informed answers about that, you can go to them. We are trying to answer your questions about the Bible and why it is believable, and you are just looking to vent and argue. If you want to have a conversation about your original question then maybe we can continue, until then… God bless, you are in my prayers.

 

[smerritt08]

some call it arguing, some call it discussing. either way it’s a great way to learn

“Mathew 16 “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church” (founding)”

see, the way i interpret that is, jesus was using the word build to imply an ongoing process. jesus himself did not physically start (founding) any church. And any churches started back then certainly didn’t have the catholic name on them, they were just believers gathering for a common cause

 

[Windfish]

You’re kind of bouncing around, aren’t you? Going from unrelated point to unrelated point. None of us, I think, are credentialed scholars by any means, but we have addressed the misgivings in your original post (i.e., remarkable historicity, date of authorship can be placed much, much closer to the events than comparable secular historical documents, differences in books included reflect a difference in theology, not in history, pagan parallels are bunk, etc.) . Because you haven’t responded to them, I have to assume you’re satisfied with them and are now going with a different “plan of attack,” so to speak. You’re now attacking the “long, corrupt” Catholic Church, probably now doubt based on misinformation and memes surrounding the Inquisition, Crusades, etc. Well, I won’t try to follow your zig-zagy approach.