|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:55 am
Hey all, it's been awhile since I've said/ done anything meaningful on here.....wait....I 've never done anyth......well never mind that. sweatdrop
I've wondered this long and hard for the longest time( natch), and unfortunatly lost a few people in my life who purported to be my friends, but for some reason immediately labelled me in their mind as imminently hellbound.Ah well, toss it off I say to them.
Brings me to my thought though, how reliable is the book that forms the epicenter of the Christian Faith, as well as it's splinter sects and detractors.
How reliable can a book written by man, and then assembled by man; ie church leaders picking and choosing what should/ shouldn't be in the " Word of God". Which is why we have the Apocriphae.
Something about that just sticks in my craw,
There just seems to be too much guesswork on the part of mankind, too much possible fiction taken as fact wholheartedly.
I'm not saying that Christ never came, there are numerous historical documents of a non-religious sort documenting his existance, so yeah I do believe in that.
And there is obviously a God.
Honestly those are the only things I find important. Everything else seems like so much chaff.
I dunno.
Any thoughts on this?
I would have posted some citations here and there, but I'm working on a shitty eMac with crap for RAM....gads how I hate using Safari... stressed
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:30 pm
In short, no. Nothing should ever be believede to the 100% mark. as for the bible it'self? I'm not sure that i should be offering an oppinion on that cansiderign that mine is completely biased. I'm a Satanist, i know that Jesus of nazareth walked the earth and taught abunch of people a crock of s**t. i don't believe any of the teachings in the bible to be correct. i can however appreciate the philosophy even if i disagree with it. but as far as I'm concerned, why should I give over everything that makes me human to please some being who'se followers post this kind of question?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 4:03 pm
I remember using Safari xD
And I understand your doubts. I've had them myself for a very long time 3nodding
Honestly, I think that the Bible should be read with a very specific mindset. We know what happens when atheists start picking off only a few verses here and there. They'll usually say something like "God, that's awful!" And it's no wonder why they have a problem with the Word. Anyone would at first.
There are many words of wisdom spoken by Jesus, recorded in Proverbs, Psalms, and in the letters to the churches, but there are also some very unusual parts to it, especially in the Old Testament, full of disturbing events or uncomfortable verses. But the tone of each book varies with its author, and some can be considered rather un-PC (Obadiah is a good example).
Times have changed, and so have we. So there may be some parts in the Bible that you might think don't really relate to us anymore. But it's good to be reminded of the past and even the most horrific events recorded in history and in the Bible serve to warn us not to repeat those mistakes again, though there are still many who never take the lessons of history to heart.
Of course the Bible, the physical books within it, were written by men. The authors were humans and all humans are flawed in some way. Humans who were touched by the Holy Spirit arranged it all together, taking into account what was valid and genuine and what was not. But it's wrong for us to think that all of these people were uneducated idiots randomly putting scrolls together. I'm more than positive that much effort, intellect and prayer went into it. Athanasius, one of the Theologians who assisted in the choosing of what books would go into the Bible, is said to have been rather particular and thorough. As for many so-called "lost gospels", many of them have been exposed as fakes.
For example, "The infancy Gospel" which shows Jesus as a divine child with a malicious temperament has many flaws which suggest that it's a fake. The writing style does not comply with the times of Jesus, and it seems to be an attempt to fill in the lost years of Jesus. The author claimed to be the brother of Jesus, yet the writing suggests an ignorance of the Jewish culture during Jesus' time. Thus it was regarded as a fake, written perhaps centuries after the death of Jesus' family. For this reason, this gospel, along with many others were not included in the Bible.
As believers we SHOULD know the history of the Bible, where it comes from, who wrote what and why. I'm learning more about it every day. If we can look past what seems to be "contradictions" and what looks like a few errors in some details, we can see a much bigger picture with an amazing message. I take to heart every word of wisdom and rather than get stuck on details, I like to look at the big picture. With so many books and so many words, I find it necessary to be that way.
Humans are imperfect, but God is holy with a perfection that surpasses our own understanding.
Don't listen to anyone who tries to condemn you over your questions or calls you a "doubting Thomas", which is the oldest trick in the book... and easily the most annoying.
Your questions are honest and there's nothing wrong with having a little doubt. It's natural, and anyone with logic has had them at some point, or will have them. But I trust that God will show you the true meaning of His Word and His purpose for our lives :]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:34 am
For the most part, there's not nearly enough archaeological evidence to support a lot of the biblical claims.
Two examples; the exodus. Although it's written down in the bible and Egypt did have a lot of slaves, there is yet to be any proof that the slaves actually left and that the plagues happened. Not to mention the 40 years in the desert.
Also, there's almost nothing outside the bible to prove that the prefect Pilate existed.
Once proof is given to me that has been verified by non-Christian archaeologists that do not have a reason to try and prove the bible, I maybe more inclined to believe some of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 4:46 pm
broken_joker For the most part, there's not nearly enough archaeological evidence to support a lot of the biblical claims. Two examples; the exodus. Although it's written down in the bible and Egypt did have a lot of slaves, there is yet to be any proof that the slaves actually left and that the plagues happened. Not to mention the 40 years in the desert. Also, there's almost nothing outside the bible to prove that the prefect Pilate existed. Once proof is given to me that has been verified by non-Christian archaeologists that do not have a reason to try and prove the bible, I maybe more inclined to believe some of it. Many archaeologists have found some evidence of the events that took place in Joshua and Nineveh, but they can never decide on the time of the actual events x_x And they keep changing their minds about the details of every scenario too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:11 pm
Riknar Steelfire ...how reliable is the book that forms the epicenter of the Christian Faith, as well as it's splinter sects and detractors. How reliable can a book written by man, and then assembled by man; ie church leaders picking and choosing what should/ shouldn't be in the " Word of God". Which is why we have the Apocriphae. Something about that just sticks in my craw, There just seems to be too much guesswork on the part of mankind, too much possible fiction taken as fact wholheartedly. I'm not saying that Christ never came, there are numerous historical documents of a non-religious sort documenting his existance, so yeah I do believe in that. And there is obviously a God. Honestly those are the only things I find important. Everything else seems like so much chaff. I dunno. Any thoughts on this? Actually historically the Apocryphal Texts were within the Christian canon of text even to this day, except for the Western Denominational Churches who reject them due solely out of Martin Luther's distrust for the texts. Luther found that there were no known Hebrew translations of the texts themselves and that the Roman Catholic Canon accepted these texts as Deuterocanonical. To accept the whole texts is an act of obedience, some may call it faith. There were around 318 Bishops presiding over the event as well as the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Emperor who oversaw the event, not as a ruler or director but as an observer. Texts were discussed on a minor level as the whole of the Church itself already had a set canon that was unofficial. It was relatively easy to determine which texts were acceptable and which were not, as the Old testament was already preserved in the Septuagint (Note- The canon which Protestants use is from the Rabbinical Jamnian canon forged over three centuries after Christ). From hereon in the Council it was established the first foundations of the Faith through the Nicean Creed. The Second Council met in Constantinople which affirmed and finished the Nicean-Constantinoplean Creed which is read in Churches today as the foundation of the faith, which confirms the belief in Jesus Christ, His Death, His resurrection, His Virgin Birth, His Ascension, His Tri-unity with The Father and the Holy Spirit and His Second Coming/Return to Earth. All this had to be confirmed in what we know as Scripture today. Every translation of text, from the earliest pieces which date back to 500 bce.(on silver plates which has Numbers and Deuteronomy written on them) all the way to modern copies of the Codexes and Texts have shown 99.997% accuracy in their texts. The only variants to the original texts we have preserved have been a letter reversed in one or two words. Nothing has eve been more accurate in history and the best example I can think of is from Shakespeare- 15 copies of Shakespeare's works of original rendering have been discovered; yet out of fifteen texts none of them are accurate to even 75%. Why then, as a religious text has been preserved to 99.997% accuracy over two thousand years ago be better preserved than the works less than five hundred years? Amazing. This shows obedience, to attention and detail for the faith which was brought upon us for the salvation of all and the obedience to Him as children. And yet the greatest commandment is to love one another as He loves us. Can we at least do this? Everything else in text is useless if we do not do the least of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:46 am
Lazarus The Resurected In short, no. Nothing should ever be believede to the 100% mark. as for the bible it'self? I'm not sure that i should be offering an oppinion on that cansiderign that mine is completely biased. I'm a Satanist, i know that Jesus of nazareth walked the earth and taught abunch of people a crock of s**t. i don't believe any of the teachings in the bible to be correct. i can however appreciate the philosophy even if i disagree with it. but as far as I'm concerned, why should I give over everything that makes me human to please some being who'se followers post this kind of question? My only question for you is if you are a Satinist why did you join this Guild........?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 4:49 pm
siya24 Lazarus The Resurected In short, no. Nothing should ever be believede to the 100% mark. as for the bible it'self? I'm not sure that i should be offering an oppinion on that cansiderign that mine is completely biased. I'm a Satanist, i know that Jesus of nazareth walked the earth and taught abunch of people a crock of s**t. i don't believe any of the teachings in the bible to be correct. i can however appreciate the philosophy even if i disagree with it. but as far as I'm concerned, why should I give over everything that makes me human to please some being who'se followers post this kind of question? My only question for you is if you are a Satinist why did you join this Guild........? Alot of people aske me that. I joined for two reasons. Firstly, I have been a member since the days when i went to church and tried to pretend to be a christian and secondly, because I like decent debate. I suppose you could tack on that i'm a goth but i think that's a pretty shallow reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
