Summary: The Bible only mentions the deaths of two apostles, James who was put to death by Harold Agrippa I in 44 AD and Judas Iscariot who committed suicide shortly after the death of Christ. The details of the deaths of three of the apostles (John, the Beloved, Bartholomew and Simon the Canaanite) are not known at all, either by tradition or early historians. The deaths of the other seven apostles are known by tradition or the writings of early Christian historians. According to traditions and the Bible, those eight Apostles died as Martyrs. At least two of the Apostles, Peter and Andrew were crucified.

http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q6_apostles_die.html

I understand that the fact that people were willing to die for a belief seems like a good argument for that belief being true, but history says otherwise. I am pretty sure the heavens gate people were wrong, but they were all willing to go to the great comet in the sky.

I would hope that the fact that people would die for a certain belief would at least indicate that they really believed, but it is hard for me to infer the internal thought process from a person who live 2000 years ago.

Maybe they did believe.

Maybe they had other reasons to not recant the faith.

Maybe they were not given the chance to recant.

Maybe they were crazy.

I don't know and neither does anyone else.

quote:

---

I understand that the fact that people were willing to die for a belief seems like a good argument for that belief being true, but history says otherwise. I am pretty sure the heavens gate people were wrong, but they were all willing to go to the great comet in the sky.

---

Under the right circumstances, you might have convinced me to take some pills, fall asleep, and wake up in a spaceship, ala Heaven's Gate.

Covered with pitch and burned or thrown to the hungry lions? I dunno about that.

Remember this thread isn't about whether or not Jesus was the Christ, its about HETJE. I think their writings prove they weren't crazy. Even Heaven's gate had a cult leader.

Maybe it's not proof Jesus was the Christ but I think it's fairly conclusive proof for HETJE

I already stated on pg1 that I am convinced that a historical Jesus existed. It seems illogical to believe otherwise. All the evidence we have is in support of a real person by the name Jesus living 2000 years ago. It doesn't make it true, but it is all the evidence we have.

I just see the "willing to die for it" explanation come up pretty often and I am not sure I buy it.

amercer, it is one thing for someone to be convinced of an untruth that they never saw, even enough to die for. But it is quite a different thing to convince someone to die for an untruth that they actually experienced first hand.

You wouldn’t be able to get very many to die for something they knew to be a lie.



[This message has been edited by SiValleyAg68 (edited 3/12/2008 2:37a).]

3xranger, This is really rich:

quote:

---

How ironic, a believer in a legend written by cavemen 1900 years ago calls skeptics of the same legend gullible.

---

You join furious, et.al. in a gossip driven conspiracy theory, criticizing efforts to keep the Gospel accounts from being tainted by crackpots over the years, and you want to call the protected writings “legend”. Do you know the definition of “legend” and the difference between legend and history? And “cavemen” – that’s really cute. But that confuses me – does that mean you think that people who lived only 1900 years ago were sub-human, not yet evolved? I guess you think that Aristotle, Socrates, Pythagorus, and all those guys were aliens from another planet?

furious, So which is it – should some group who has a set of writings (that they know to be true) just let any crackpots go around making up fictitious stories and passing them off as authentic writings of this same group?
Or do you believe that it is universally sacred that anybody should be allowed to pass their own fanciful rendition of an account as being truth?

quote:

---

This is the exact thing I take issue with. Who decided this? Men. Regular, flawed, agenda-driven people.

Ideas were suppressed, period. Anything that went against the Roman Catholic Church's teachings was dealt with harshly. Remember the Inquisition? These weren't slaps on the wrist. It was a controlled, blatant, and violent method of indoctrination.

---

You mean “Regular, flawed, agenda-driven people” like you? Are you deluding yourself that you don’t have an agenda to paint the Roman Catholic Church as evil?
Everybody who wants to lambast the Roman Catholic Church slaps the inquisition on the table as says (even to those who don’t know what the inquisition was about) since the inquisition was evil, that makes the Roman Catholic Church as evil as it.
Humans are evil. Not all humans who claim to be Christians are living a Christian life.

craigernaught,

quote:

---

To say this is just intellectually dishonest. There are a lot of opinions out there but it is true that most biblical scholars accept a two-source hypothesis meaning that matthew and luke borrow from mark and another common source.

---

What is “intellectually dishonest”? I know “that most biblical scholars accept a two-source hypothesis”. But that is based on speculation and opinion. These opinions are based on one sided analysis of questionably translated English texts.

The example you cite is a good case in point. Now all the disciples knew the roll of John the Baptizer was fulfilling that prophetic roll. Jesus had probably quoted that verse of Scripture at least 70 times (or maybe 7 times 70 ). Any of Jesus’ disciples are going to write similar quotes. How can any objective scholar claim that the fact that they had almost identical passages meant that one copied the other.
These kind of examples are NOT EVIDENCE – they are stupid at best and “intellectually dishonest” at worse.

quote:

---

There are plenty of instances in the text that show this relationship and i don't want to write a novel (nor am i capable).

---

These “relationships” are NOT EVIDENCE that one Gospel was the source of the other. They are evidence that they had the same teacher – Jesus.

BTW, Luke is not a first-hand account in the sense that Luke did not experience all that he wrote – he even states that. But he is very meticulous in interviewing the first hand sources, as he states.

Mark may have experienced some of which he wrote, but he is basically Apostle Peter’s secretary. So what he wrote was basically written by Simon Peter.

Maybe.

I don't know what it was like to live in that period and in that place. It's possible that there were many circumstances where a person might prefer to die for a lie than live with the truth.

What was that horrible movie where Richard Gere gets hanged because he won't admit that he isn't Jodie Fosters lost husband? We could probably dream up hundreds of scenarios were a person might be unable to live with the truth and would choose to die for the lie.

2000 years ago, living exposed as a liar might not have had much worth compared to the idea of being remembered as a martyr or saint.

I don't really doubt that the early Christians believed, but I don't necessarily see the "willing to die for it" argument as persuasive.

quote:

---

prim - I guess I just see what happens in today's political world, especially 3rd world countries and the middle east, and get the sense that it was much the same if not worse 2000 years ago.

---

Furioua, I'd be lying to you if I didn't admit that the things you mention above have changed some of my perspectives, too. Even about faith based things. Certainly about politics.

Keep asking. Keep searching. You seem so sincere and you have great ardor. That's a good combination in my book.

Yikes, this thread blew up quick. It's amazing how poor some of these arguments are against the NT texts, and how people just talk past each other. Most of this seems to have to deal with people not dealing with the criteria that is needed to establish knowledge of ancient history.

The Bible is the most historically documented work of ancient history that we have. The synoptic gospels are earlier than the gnostic ones, and there are also linages going back supporting the synoptic gospels. The gnostic groups (however many there were -- uniformity between them all is very hard to pin down that well) have no such case, and is why their works were dismissed as forgeries and ultimately unsuccessful in trying to persuade the masses. That is why the probability involved tips its hand to the NT texts, when you find contradiction between the two. Anyhow, saw this and couldn't resist.


Furious,

quote:

---

The Josephus entry in Antiquities has been proven to be a Church forgery.

---

There are two entries in Josephus. There is the controversial one which you mention, and then there is also a non-controversial one. Scholars doubt the one, but not the other.

So please allow me to summarize what I learned from this posting:

1) It seems like some folks believe all the gospels were first hand accounts and are convinced this isn't even debatable. Some proof was presented to the contrary, but it never was proved one way or another in my mind.

2) It seems like others are convinced that some of the gospels are first hand witnesses.

3) Others believe it is debatable if any of the gospels were first hand accounts. This position is supported by my bible notes and wikipedia entries (not that these are compelling).

4) I believe there were no other pieces of evidence provided showing first hand accounts of Jesus. Some mentioned later writings (josephus), which others feel are bogus. Most agree these were written after Jesus' death by folks who hadn't witnesses his life.

5) Some mentioned the non-canonical writings, which present more information on Jesus than the bible. Others believe these are bogus and even heresy.

6) Some claim that the fact that christianity grew so quickly with so many willing to die for this cause is significant proof that Jesus existed and the biblical claims are true. Others pointed out that many folks have believed in things which aren't true (LDS was mentioned) and many have died for things which aren't true (heaven's gate, jim jones for example).

7) Some feel the bible is so compelling that the burden of proof should be on non-believers. Others feel the biblical claims are so extraordinary that believers should provide evidence.

8) Some claimed that the level of proof a historian needs is too high and that many real and well known historical people/places don't pass this test.

9) It is pointed out that the Bible contains many accurate people, places, historical events etc. Noone denies this I believe. Others would point out that so do fictional works such as Hercules.

Can we all agree on the above? Did I misrepresent anyone's position.

My personal summary is this. People that believe the gospels are passionate about this and will continue to believe all the claims are true. People that see the bible as an endless array of extraordinary claims will continue to question and/or deny these people/events happened. It is an argument I have had countless times in my life:

Me: "Do you have any proof the biblical claims are true (i.e. what evidence do you have)?"

Christian: "The Bible contains the names of real people and places"

Me: "So does hercules, do you have any historical evidence"

Christian: "The bible is the only proof I need, what more evidence could you want?"

Me: "What if you aren't sure the bible is true"

Christian: "Of course the bible is true, everyone knows that!"

Stalemate.

I still believe that our society plays a large role in this. If you even mention that a single passage in the bible isn't true, people look at you like you are crazy. However, when I have this dialogue with muslims, they are easy to agree with me (unless you start talking about muslim theology). Remember my claim that all religions look crazy from the outside in? It almost always holds true.

I remember seeing a web site from an atheist who had a running challenge to christians: document the events of easter sunday, the most important day in the history of christianity. A simple challenge: simply go through the 4 gospels and document what happened when and who was where. The challenger said christians routinely say 'piece of cake, I'll have it to you tomorrow'. Yet he had never received one, ever. He claims it is because the gospels contradict each other all over the place and folks who take that challenge quickly realize this. Does this mean their claims are not true? Absolutely not. Perhaps people mis-remembered the events. Who knows. It just shows that even this simple test seems to be trivial to christians when it isn't. This is just one more piece of evidence which forms the fabric of a belief system.

SilValley - you are making my point exactly. You are assuming what you read on Sundays is the "protected" gospel, but why? Of course I'm a normal flawed human like everyone else, but you've got my agenda pegged wrong. My agenda is simply to figure out why things are the way the are. The difference is I'm not starting with the answer like you seem to be doing. I'm not looking at the Bible as some inerrant book first and looking for historical proof to back it up. I'm starting 2000 years ago and saying "what happened or could have happened then to get us where we are today."

I'm actually a huge fan of the RCC. I'm a confirmed Catholic. I actually liked what I was taught in CCD classes until I learned that's not what the majority of Catholics believe. I went to an extremely liberal parish I suppose.

Anyways, I notice you didn't refute any of my points about the malicious history of the Church. I didn't make them to paint the Church as evil. I made them to illustrate the fact that the history of religion isn't always about spirituality; it's been about power, suppression, torture, corruption, and control in promoting spirituality. It is undeniable.

prim - thanks, searching is all I can do. I'm pretty comfortable with what I believe but I'm always looking to assimilate new ideas. I'm the one person that has no issue dumping an inferior idea for a superior one. Of course, I'm the one the judge the quality of the idea, but I'm not so invested in anything that I've fettered my reason. (btw - this last sentence wasn't to imply how anyone else thinks - just how I do)

cyprian -

You are correct but doesn't the other entry say something like "There's a group of Christians who follow this guy Jesus who died a criminal?"

I get the relevance to this discussion, but I don't think anyone denies that Christians actually existed who believe Jesus existed.

agupnorth -

You should read "Misquoting Jesus." There's a pretty good discussion about the Passion narratives and how they don't match up well. Even the demeanor of Jesus is changed. In Mark he rebukes God saying "why have you forsaken me?" In Matthew (I think) he's more serene and accepting with the common "into your hands I commend my spirit," or whatever.

[This message has been edited by Furious (edited 3/12/2008 10:37a).]

quote:

---

3xranger


I would be of the opinion that what these newly discovered texts illuminate is the fact that Christianity was not a monolith of belief. Rather, Christianity came together from a collection of many beliefs and philosophies--some contradicting what Christians believe today.

As Christianity grew in power and popularity, it had to define to it's believers the "proper" beliefs and rules (dogma) to adhere to.

---

Nailed it. Many fail to realize that there were literally hundreds of Christian "sects" in the very early years of Christianity.

Any quick read of Ehrman or Fredriksen will give you a quick perspective on the variations on early Christianity.

Random Fact:

The only documentation of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, was from the records of Alexander the Great's conquest. That is, no records or proof of its existence originate from the culture in which they were built.

Takeaways:
1.) If we wish to discredit the historical basis of Jesus, many other historical facts would be discredited by applying the same parameters.
2.) Eastern (those to the east of Greece) cultures pass history down orally rather than by written as Western (those to the west of Greece) cultures.

Further observation:

Have you ever heard a real storyteller tell a story? Have you ever heard a story grow in detail, excitement, and meaning?

Finally, have you ever listened to a song and found your own meaning in it? Chances are, the meaning was drastically different than what the author intended. Same with poetry and prose.

Stories get embellished. Stories get misinterpreted. Stories get turn to outright hyperbole.

So what does that leave us with? I'd say it leaves us with no hard evidence but a collection of great literature and life-changing philosophy.

I guess that's just not enough for most people.

An interesting analysis, check out the following image plotting the extrordinary claims of each account of easter, plotted by when they were written:



Of course, you could say the author is a kook from a nutty organization, blinded by their agenda (which is probably all true):
http://ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php

agupnorth , your summarized list might indeed express what you learned, but you are missing the point of Christian contention. If the Bible was just a matter of journalistic accuracy, then your list might be a start towards something (even though our literary arguments are so far quite primitive and sophomoric).

However, the Christian basis for the Bible is the belief that it is The Inspired Word of God. That means that the human authors were writing what God's Holy Spirit impelled them to write in their own personal vernacular (vernacular here refers to the personal language of the writer with his personal mind set from which he spoke). Even though it was their vernacular, it was a spontaneous improvement of their vernacular. That would constitute more than just a "poetic inspiration", which comes from God anyway. But such a "work" would be their pinnacle literary performance, certainly beyond their "normal" literary work. But even more than that, God impelled choices of words which can pack more layers of meaning than what the writer realized. God's context is greater than the writer's context and continues to unfold, especially considering multiple conjunctions of various Biblical writings.

Of course I speak of the original manuscripts – not necessarily the copies (which might have copy flaws) interpreted into various languages by (questionable) interpreters. The problem we have today is that most people read the interpreted Bibles without consideration for the difference in personal vernacular between the interpreters and the readers. This is especially true of the Synoptic Gospels, since scholars can’t even agree about the original language of the original manuscripts. I have read linguistic arguments convincingly proving that Matthew’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew to a Hebrew speaking Jewish audience.

But more importantly, when one reads the Bible to find what it contains, the reader must rely on God’s Holy Spirit to “breathe out” into the mind and heart of the reader what He “breathed into” the writing. This concept is especially presented by St. Peter, in his intention to preserve the authentic message:

quote:

---

So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things. (2Peter 1:12-15)

---

His claim of authenticity:

quote:

---

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. (2Peter 1:16-18)

---

His message:

quote:

---

And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2Peter 1:19-21)

---

This is NIV tranlation. In NAB translation the “carried along by the Holy Spirit” was “impelled by the Holy Spirit. Also, the term “prophecy” does not mean “predicting the future” (that is sometimes what can be contained in prophecy), but it means “speaking the message God wants to be proclaimed”.

So in essence, the “dark place” is the lack of spiritual enlightenment, where we often find ourselves (even when we believe). St. Peter exhorts us (in verse 19) to hold the words of the Bible in our hearts until the light comes on and we “get it” (my vernacular). And Peter states forcefully that the words of Scripture are NOT just the opinions or ideas of the respective writers but these writers chose words that God enlightened them to use, so that the content of the message is God’s message.

In that perspective, it is not so important that the “penman” of the Gospel is the one who saw and heard exactly what transpired, but that the writing expresses what God wanted said about what transpired. And we might conclude that He obviously wanted 4 different perspectives of what transpired.

Further study reveals why.

Furious,

quote:

---

SiValley - you are making my point exactly. You are assuming what you read on Sundays is the "protected" gospel, but why?

---

I don’t assume anything. I know the limitations of the American English Catholic translations (NAB) of the Lectionary and the Bible. I have studied the Bible extensively (since about 1982), including participatin in a 10 year non-denominational Bible study (where I was the token Catholic), years of Catholic Bible Study classes (that tried my patience), several Protestant and Jewish Bible studies on tape, and several challanging books on Bible origin and interpretation. I’ve had a subscription to Biblical Archeology Review, although I can’t say that BAR is a significant source of enlightenment. And along with the standard Diocesan Catecheses certification classes on Church History, I also facilitated an Adult Education speaker series on Church History Where the Priest, a Church History scholar laid it out in all its glory and ugliness. I don’t claim to be an expert but a little more scholarly than the average Catholic.

quote:

---

Of course I'm a normal flawed human like everyone else, but you've got my agenda pegged wrong. My agenda is simply to figure out why things are the way they are. The difference is I'm not starting with the answer like you seem to be doing. I'm not looking at the Bible as some inerrant book first and looking for historical proof to back it up. I'm starting 2000 years ago and saying "what happened or could have happened then to get us where we are today."

I'm actually a huge fan of the RCC. I'm a confirmed Catholic. I actually liked what I was taught in CCD classes until I learned that's not what the majority of Catholics believe. I went to an extremely liberal parish I suppose.

---

I apologize for pegging your agenda wrong – perhaps we all come across a little more extreme than we intend, because we are somtimes frustrated at being misinterpreted or someone just hitting our hot button. And we can’s seem to get our points out fast enough, ... so we try to supercharge our post. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

When you said “ I actually liked what I was taught in CCD classes until I learned that's not what the majority of Catholics believe. I went to an extremely liberal parish I suppose”, do you mean that what you liked was liberal and when you found out it wasn’t mainline Catholicism you dislike Catholicism? When you say “what the majority of Catholics believe”, do you mean

• what the Magisterium teaches,
• what most American Catholic teachers teach,
• what most Catholics (erroneously) believe, or
• what?

I have found that most American Catholic teachers, including Priest and Theologians, don’t know or agree with the Magisterium, because they haven’t devoted enough time or objectivity to what the Magisterium teaches. It is truly sad, because most Catholics aren’t taught the true beliefs of the Church, and consequently have all kinds of errant beliefs.
What is it that you were taught with which you have the main problem?

"agupnorth , your summarized list might indeed express what you learned, but you are missing the point of Christian contention. If the Bible was just a matter of journalistic accuracy, then your list might be a start towards something (even though our literary arguments are so far quite primitive and sophomoric).

However, the Christian basis for the Bible is the belief that it is The Inspired Word of God."

I think you just nailed my position. Christians take the bible as truth based upon their christian faith. Folks like me question their validity. It quickly becomes a circular argument:

Me: "I want proof or evidence of the biblical claims - can these withstand other writings and historical evidence"

Christian: "What more proof do you need than the Bible, which is the divine word of God"

Then we get nowhere. Remember, the book of mormon, which I would guess most on here would agree is fiction, has at the very beginning a list of witnesses swearing up and down that the Joseph Smith's claims in the book are true. However, this isn't enough in my opinion. We need to look at the claims scientifically, look at other writings etc to see if it holds up. With that said, my LDS friends (I have tons of them including my boss), have a similar position to yours (replace bible with the book of mormon):

Me: "I want proof or evidence of the book of mormon claims - can these withstand other writings and historical evidence"

Christian: "What more proof do you need than the book of mormon, which is the divine word of God"

I can respect both positions. As I said, with all my bull-sheet on this post, I still believe in God. Don't know why, I just do. I can't bas e it on facts, logic, reason, simply faith. My beliefs wouldn't be one bit different if the bible, book of mormon, kuran, torah etc had never been written. So I can respect believing based upon faith alone, as long as the lack of evidence is admitted. I feel christians have the faith, but most of the time refuse to admit that there is a huge lack of evidence. This lack of evidence doesn't prove that christianity is bogus.

The issue is that I don't have any problems with what I was taught - it makes perfect sense to me. My problem is that I'm apparently not a good Christian...

Basically all the emphasis was on lessons and not whether something really happened. It's irrelevant if Job was a real dude. What's relevant is what you take away from the story. I always viewed the Bible as historical fiction. It's the way my mom explained it to me and the way my relatives in a different part of the country (also Catholics) would talk about it. I just seemed to click and could stand any barrage of philosophical scrutiny.

It wasn't until I really got into discussions with "real Christians" that I became discouraged. I started looking at whether or not I could buy the company line about inerrancy and, more importantly, if it mattered.

Then I started to see the hardcore Catholics in the parish I grew up in begin to pressure my dad (who is a Methodist but attends Church every Sunday with my mom). It was subtle at first, but increasingly became a "we are concerned for your eternal soul - you really should convert." This is the stuff that really turns me off to it all.

I hate that it's a power grab. I hate that it's political. I hate that people use their religion to control others. There's just so much negativity surrounding religion it's almost comical. That's not what it's supposed to be about.

Anyways, I think I'm way off topic now. The point is that for me I've always thought the morals, advice, and philosophy was what made Christianity, and more specifically Catholicism, strong and not the rituals and superstition. I loved that while people struggled with painstakingly trying to make everything match up, we Catholics had it all figured out. Then I found out that's really not the case and that the majority of Catholics struggle just as hard to shoehorn everything into Biblical passage.

not to turn this into a catholic debate (my family are all catholic, we don't talk about religion as you might guess, I do have one uncle who is an atheist, we get along great, I am hoping he let's me borrow his 'recovering catholic' shirt one day), but how many of these catholic doctrines have a basis in the bible and how many came much later (I am not an expert on this topic, so I am just throwing them out there)? My point is, people tend to accept things they were taught as kids and others in their sphere of influence also believe, they see such things as 'normal' and 'self evident', and any debate of them is considered and attempt to be contrarian:

the word 'trinity'
the word 'rapture'
The daily mass
The doctrine of purgatory (Pope Gregory)
Prayers to the Virgin, Queen of Heaven
The first Pope (Boniface III).
Kissing the Pope's foot began in 709 A.D.
Temporal power of the Pope declared in 750 A.D.
Worship of images, relics and cross, 788 A.D.
Holy water, blessed by a priest, 850 A.D.
Veneration of St. Joseph, 890 A.D.
Canonisation of dead saints (Pope John XV), 995 A.D.
Lent and Good Friday began in 998 A.D.
The mass declared to be a sacrifice of Christ, 1050 A.D.
Celibacy of the priesthood and nuns, 1079 A.D.
The rosary introduced by Peter the Hermit, 1090 A.D.
Selling indulgences began in 1190 A.D.
Doctrine of transubstantiation adopted in 1215 A.D.
Confession of sins to human priest, 1215 A.D.
Adoration of the water (Pope Honorius), 1220 A.D.
Interpretation of Bible forbidden to laity, 1229 A.D.
Scapular declared a charm against dangers, 1287 A.D.
Communion under one kind, 1414 A.D.
Seven sacraments declared, 1439 A.D.
Superstitions of the Ave Maria (Pope Sextus V), 1508 A.D.
Tradition established as infallible authority, 1545 A.D.
Apocryphal books added to the Bible, 1546 A.D.
Immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, 1854 A.D.
Infallibility of the Popes, 1870 A.D.
Mary declared to be the Mother of God, 1931 A.D.
Assumption (translation) of the Virgin Mary, 1950 A.D.

Again, I yanked these from some web site years ago and haven't done much research personally, all of these could possibly be proved to be bogus by someone who knows more about catholic doctrine than me - which is probably every catholic in the world. Regardless, I think catholicism has many beautiful aspect (charity for one).

I'm pretty sure there's biblical basis for most things the RCC does, most of it implied.

I do appreciate that the RCC purports to be a fluid moral guide that doesn't rely solely on scripture. I don't like the way they go about it, the absolutism, but I think it's a good start.

quote:

---

The evidence seems weak to me.

---

I think it will always seem weak to you, no matter how strong it actually is.

After reading this thread, I get the impression that some people would question the existence of the Great Pyramid and when somebody takes them to Egypt and shows them the pyramid, they would respond by saying, "But, how do I know what I'm seeing is real? Show me some proof other than that there pyramid."

Just my impression.

This just in - hearsay not admissible as evidence...

Yeah, yeah there are exceptions but,

quote:

---

The theory of the rule excluding hearsay is that assertions made by human beings are naturally unreliable. It is therefore necessary to subject such forms of evidence to “scrutiny or analysis calculated to discover and expose in detail its possible weaknesses, and thus to enable the tribunal (judge or jury) to estimate it at no more than its actual value” (Wigmore on Evidence §1360).

---

Anyways, how do you address such things as the BOM? How can you discount the veracity of its claims?

Guys, I have found that no matter what you say to some people, they will believe what they wish.

Let it lie.

We're either wrong, and we're meat for the worms, or we're right. Either way, at least for those who believe.. is bliss. If we're worm food, we'll never know we were wrong.

Well there's those of us that enjoy learning, debating ideas, and attempting to enrich our lives at the same time.

The other problem is that those of belief vote those beliefs onto everyone else. It would be great to "live and let live" with this, but it's just not the case. Of course the converse is true, but rarely do you see religious freedom curtailed.

For example, if abortion stays legal and you are pro-life, nothing changes for you. You still won't get an abortion just because you can.

For example, allowing gays to marry does not infringe on anything you do with your life.

Old_ag_91

Sounds like Pascal's assertion about erring on God's side. Just in case.

Two problems to ponder:
1. You may be praying to the wrong God--there have been thousands in human history. What if you end-up in hell anyway because when you die, you find that an angry Allah (I know same god but different rules on earth) waiting to ask you why you didn't follow his book.
2. You waste your life away believing in something false. You may be living a lie, and you only get one life.

[This message has been edited by 3xranger (edited 3/13/2008 4:19p).]

I still maintain that God would know your ruse and not appreciate being a hedge on salvation...

Not a ruse if you truly believe it.

Furious, I see where you’re coming from.

quote:

---

Basically all the emphasis was on lessons and not whether something really happened. It's irrelevant if Job was a real dude. What's relevant is what you take away from the story.

---

What most Catholics, Protestants, and even non Christians don’t grasp is that there are multiple “layers” of meanings and importance in the Bible. Maybe 80-90% of the importance of Job doesn’t matter about the historicity of Job being a real person. If you were to glean the Bible for all the meanings without confirming the historicity (but without denying it), then you would be far ahead of most.
But there are some things, like Jesus dying on the Cross and rising from the dead, of which the historicity is pivotal.

quote:

---

I always viewed the Bible as historical fiction. It's the way my mom explained it to me and the way my relatives in a different part of the country (also Catholics) would talk about it. I just seemed to click and could stand any barrage of philosophical scrutiny.

---

First of all, there are different styles of writings in the Bible, some of which are historical and some metaphorical. I believe that most historical books are also metaphorical in a different layer(s) of meaning. But there are some books that are mostly metaphorical with perhaps some basis in historical facts. There is a lot of disagreement on historicity among Bible scholars of most, if not all, denominations. But there are some Biblical topics that are critically important as historical. That would be a good topic for another thread.

quote:

---

It wasn't until I really got into discussions with "real Christians" that I became discouraged. I started looking at whether or not I could buy the company line about inerrancy and, more importantly, if it mattered.

---

Well I can tell you that inerrancy matters very greatly, and the fact that most Catholics don’t understand that is partly the reason for our inability to come to grips with the Church’s teachings. But inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures doesn’t mean that our translation is inerrant, only that the original manuscripts were inerrant.

Also, inerrant doesn’t mean that one can take the original text and just translate it word for word and come out with the meaning. The hardest part is getting back to the original vernacular of the particular writer. Then the context and connotations determine the meaning, including the conjunction of other Biblical writings.

quote:

---

I loved that while people struggled with painstakingly trying to make everything match up, we Catholics had it all figured out. Then I found out that's really not the case and that the majority of Catholics struggle just as hard to shoehorn everything into Biblical passage.

---

Well, maybe that’s the problem – instead of struggling to shoehorn everything into Biblical passage, we should be listening to God in the passages, and shoehorn the Word of God into our lives.


[This message has been edited by SiValleyAg68 (edited 3/13/2008 7:23p).]

agupnorth , I don’t know where you got that list, but it is not a list of Catholic doctrines. Some might be doctrines, but some are clearly not; and I would say that the dates are just as suspect. Catholic Doctrines are developed over time, where at some point, the Magisterium declares that they are Church teachings. Historically, I believe that most doctrines have become developed as the result from clearing up some controversy – after study, discussion, and prayer, Church councils have declared what must be true and what must be false. Some on your list are just words that are associated with some doctrine, some on your list are just traditions, and some on your list are false assertions.

quote:

---

My point is, people tend to accept things they were taught as kids and others in their sphere of influence also believe, they see such things as 'normal' and 'self evident', and any debate of them is considered and attempt to be contrarian:

---

I agree with what your saying – human beings learn from other human beings, and some people don’t question the implications or validity, but then some people reject those things because they don’t like the implications – that’s human nature.

But you can’t just dismiss religion claiming it’s just human nature. We are each responsible for our own lives. And we are culpable for the wrongs we teach to others, even if we are ignorant of the wrong. Wherever we are, born into whatever belief system, God is there calling us to the Truth. It might be harder, if the established culture is ungodly, but then again it might be easier so see the Light with such a dark backdrop. Anyway, God sees into the heart of each person.

But if we have been shown the Truth and reject it, then we are worse off than those who had a false counterfit foisted upon them.
I believe that the people who have the hardest time believing the Bible are the ones who were naive about the difficulties and were embarrased by some unbelievers who had arguments that they couldn’t answer. They become more afraid of being seen a gullible than they are of accepting a false philosophy.

quote:

---

But if we have been shown the Truth and reject it

---

As a recovering Catholic, this attitude is one that really bothered me when I was being indoctrinated (cathesism). The arrogance of a man telling me he knows the truth--the only truth. I tell people, "if someone tells you they know what will happen when you die, run the other way. He/she is either trying to manipulate you or he/she is nuts.

quote:

---

, then we are worse off than those who had a false counterfit foisted upon them.

---

Others have false beliefs around the world. How arrogant. How about some humility. Crusades anyone?

quote:

---

I believe that the people who have the hardest time believing the Bible are the ones who were naive about the difficulties and were embarrased by some unbelievers who had arguments that they couldn’t answer.

---

What? Naive about the difficulties of believing in something there is no evidence for? That sounds like a contradiction in terms.

quote:

---

They become more afraid of being seen a gullible than they are of accepting a false philosophy.

---

A little more arrogance here. "My philosophy is the truth, yours is false. I can't actually prove it, I just know it is."




[This message has been edited by 3xranger (edited 3/14/2008 8:14a).]