Join Date: Mar 2005
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
|Well, you may not have intended to offend, but you have. Why is there such a misconception regarding Catholicism as a Christian denomination? Where do you think the other denominations of Christianity derived from? Why are subtle forms of Catholic-bashing allowed. Catholics are Christians, sorry if that bothers you, but it is an inescapable fact. I'm just as much of a Christian as a Lutheran, a Baptist, or a Methodist. If anything, that article just points out what some Catholics believe. It certainly doesn't make them less Christian than anyone else.|
|Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
"The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
"The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
"We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
|I mean no disrespect, honestly, I don't. However, you made the conscious choice to leave the religion in which you were raised and then made a choice to read the Bible from cover to cover. That is the choice you made. You can take it literally if you so choose. I choose not to take it literally, and that does not mean that I don't believe in Christ. However, I could not fathom (as I am a teacher myself) the amount of arrogance that it would take, to suggest that any of my Muslim or Hindi students (which make up a great number of my students mixed with Christian students) read the Bible. If it were me, I'd be beyond insulted that someone else's religious viewpoint was being shoved down my throat, even as a suggestion. If they wanted to read it on their own, fine. However, I wouldn't want to be the one suggesting that my beliefs were more valid than theirs, just as much as I'd dislike it if they suggested that their beliefs were more valid than mine.
As for the Bible shaping our culture and society, yes, I do agree that there are some codes of conduct that everyone, in our societies, abide by; treat others as you would want to be treated yourself. This is in no way a Christian-only thought. It is the basic golden rule.
Not everyone in our society has the faith of a particular religion. Not everyone is religious. Some people are atheists or agnostics. Are they not part of our society? Why should they have to be forced, or have it suggested to them, that they need to read the Bible. I am not an American, but have enough US history to understand that your founding fathers separated from England to get away from religious persecution, so as not to have the Church of England dictate how, when, or why someone should worship. Separation of church and state, anyone?
Did you ever stop to consider that your hs English teacher suggested you read the Bible as a piece of literature (historical document, if you will), and not as literal fact?
Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders
I'm wondering if anyone has any information on why the Christian version of the Hebrew Tanakh was included in the Christian Bible. It is something that has always confused me a bit, and now that I have studied even more about the whole Jesus story and what-not, really confuses me. From a Christian pov (at least the one I was taught while in the church), the "OT" is null and void, and an outdated piece of writings which show a different G-d than the one portrayed in the "NT." Why did the early church "fathers" choose to keep the Tanakh (more or less) as part of their religion's holy writings if they really didn't use it for anything in terms of teaching the Jesus story?
|Actually, the OT is not null and void.
There are many different denominations among Christianity and I cannot speak for all of them, so for those Christians who disagree with me, I am just giving the Christian point of view that I have learned and believe.
|The reason the Old Testament is part of the entire Bible that is used in Christianity is that Christianity is an offshoot from Judaism and the Old Testament and New Testament all together form the Bible. The Old Testament is the background for the New Testament and it contains predictions of Christ and the New Testament quotes the Old Testament in many places. In order to understand the New Testament, you need to read and understand the Old Testament. The New Testament is not complete without the Old Testament. Together they are all God's revelation.
According to the Christian religion, Jesus is God, the same God that is in the Old Testament. Christians believe that there is only one God and He is triune - three/one - God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, but still only one God, and He is the same God of the Old Testament.
Originally Posted by christianmomof3
The Old Testament is the background for the New Testament and it contains predictions of Christ
Originally Posted by MyLittleWonders
Well, I guess it depends one who you ask! I've been in a non-denominational church that used the "OT" for making some points, but never for direct instruction.
|I've also been in a messianic church that tried to keep the "OT" as Jewish believers. From my personal experiences, there is quite a division between the two churches. By stating that most of what I've been taught involved the "OT" being "null and void" meant that most every Christian church believes that the "Old" Covenant is gone and the "New" is now in place.|
|Again, it depends on who you ask as to if they agree with this. The first thing that began my leaving of Christianity was actually researching the "OT" mentions of Jesus and really studying these supposed prophecies. There is another whole school of thought when it comes to things like the "virgin birth", the prediction of the death on the cross, as well as things like human/vicarious sacrifice.|
|From a Jewish perspective, Jesus could not be G-d; that would be polytheistic in belief. (As well, the belief of a trinity is polytheistic.)|
|But, back to my original question, which I'm still wondering about ... most churches do not believe that the covenant laid forth in the "OT" is in place today; most believe they have replaced Israel as G-d's chose people. Some don't believe that per se, but do believe that G-d has different dispensations for different sets of people in different sets of time. No matter how you see it, I'd argue that 99% of the Christians in the world (all-emcompassing; I'm not into leaving out people who believe in Christ from that definition) do not believe the need to adhere to the "OT." Heck, there are even some denominations out there that consider themselves "NT" churches.|
|Which, in a way, begs my question:
What was it that the church fathers (what basically began the Catholic church [or Orthodox, depending on who's view of the Great Scism ? you believe]) saw in the "OT" to keep it as part of their cannon.
|The "OT" is VERY different in many ways from the "NT" - it preaches to a different set of people a different set of rules for a different set of times.|
|Most churches don't see any validity in the rules of kosher, for instance, nor do they keep the Sabbath of the "OT" or the Feasts of G-d. So, if 90-99% of the book, as a whole, is defunct according to Christian theology, why did it become part of the Christian cannon? Wouldn't it have been easier to maybe include a new book written about the basic Creation story, and then gone right into the "NT"? It would have made it much easier than constantly trying to explain why things were in there that contradicted the new message of the "NT".|
Originally Posted by BelovedBird
I love how the "early jewish writings" site calls the OT from the king james bible the "TaNaCh". And they're all in English. what a crack up! :LOL
|Would you like to see an improvement of some kind--aesthetic, navigational, functional, or content-wise? Now is the time to be heard! I am devoting most of the next 6 weeks to providing an overhaul of Early Jewish Writings. And I want to hear any suggestions about what you want, big or small. Please think about how you use the site, how that could be better, and what use you could get out of it that isn't even there now. Basically, your wish is my command.|
Originally Posted by DaryLLL
Kirby is an atheist. His site is for the benefit of those who seek to learn about the Bible (your definition here) from a historical critical viewpoint, not a faith viewpoint.
Did you email him with your suggestions, amy?
|Information on Pseudo-Hecataeus
Martin McNamara writes: "In his treatise Against Apion (1.22 §§183-205 and elsewhere) Josephus gives a number of excerpts on Jewish history from a work he attributes to Hecataeus of Abdera—a well-known pagan Greek historian of the late fourth-early third century B.C. Modern scholarship is divided as to whether the excerpts are derived from the pagan writer Hecataeus or rather from a Jewish writer, presumably pseudonymous. The passages cited by Josephus, and the contents of the work as given by him, show such an acquaintance with Jewish affairs that the work may well be from the pen of Jew rather than of a pagan, the work may even have been composed by a Jerusalem priest who became a soldier and joined the army of Alexander the Great as it marched towards the Red Sea. A date of about 300 B.C. would suit for the composition of this work on the history of the Jews. Together with the excerpts given by Josephus in Against Apion 1.22 §§183-205, there may also be an excerpt from it in the same work 1.7.23 §§213-215 and also in The Letter of Aristeas 83-120." (Intertestamental Literature, p. 213)
|Haphazard Canonization and Textual Difficulties
Many Christians have a very vague idea about how this collection was achieved. Even then it is probably filled with belief that the method of collection was miraculously inspired...the "canon of the Bible" ...sacred writings or the word of God to the exclusion of all other books... [Christians believe]Either a book is inspired by God or it is not...The uninitiated would naturally and common-sensically expect these "inspired" books to be somehow so different from those rejected that it would be an easy matter to separate them... The truth of the matter... is very different.
* The Jewish OT canon, finalized at the end of the first century CE, was based on, among other things, the mistaken attribution of authorship, political considerations and haphazard selections of the "authoritative" textual versions.
* The Christian OT canon is similarly confused,...various denominations unable to agree on even which books are inspired!
* Some canonical New Testament books even refer to books not in the Old Testament Canon as though they are authoritative scripture.
New Testament canonization:
* ...transmission of New Testament...became more and more corrupted as time goes on...
* The canonization process was a hodgepodge of mistaken authorship attribution, faulty logic and the politics of heresy...
[Bible as a whole]
* ... is filled with scientific errors, contradictions and numerous other errors.
* Many of its myths...were derived from earlier middle eastern myths.
* The authors are largely anonymous.
|49 members and 16,797 guests|
|agentofchaos , bananabee , BirthFree , Bow , CricketVS , Dakotacakes , Deborah , Dovenoir , easydoesit , emmy526 , fljen , girlspn , greenemami , happy-mama , incorrigible , Jessica765 , kathymuggle , Kelleybug , LibraSun , lnf , Mayar , MeanVeggie , Michele123 , Mirzam , mumto1 , oaksie68 , pokeyac , redsally , RollerCoasterMama , samaxtics , scaramouche131 , seap3 , shantimama , Shmootzi , Snydley , Socks , sren , stephaniepifer , tattoodad , TobyS , Turquesa , Water Mama , Wolfcat , zarine , zebra15 , zoeyzoo|
|Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 01:21 PM.|