Originally posted by lucifershammerCould you point to some specific teachings from such "qualified" sources that will help us identify which parts of the Bible are true and which are complete BS?
As far as I'm considered, you're qualified to determine what parts of the Bible are exaggerated when you're a Bishop teaching what the Church teaches or when you're the Pope. Otherwise, an STB (Baccalaureate in Sacred Theology) would allow you to give an expert opinion deserving serious consideration.
Thank you.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is no complete "disambiguation guide" to the Bible, if that's what you're looking for.
Could you point to some specific teachings from such "qualified" sources that will help us identify which parts of the Bible are true and which are complete BS?
Thank you.
The Catechism does list general hermeneutical principles in its section on the 'Senses of Scripture'.
Certain events (e.g. Genesis creation) are marked out as having used figurative language. Certain events (e.g. Virgin Birth, Resurrection) are taken literally.
EDIT: But you already know this, as an ex-Catholic.
Originally posted by lucifershammerSure I know that. But I don't ever remember any teaching in the RCC that the history of the Israelites given in the Old Testament could be treated as anything but fact. You seem to be doing another round of "cherry picking" to make it all come out right.
There is no complete "disambiguation guide" to the Bible, if that's what you're looking for.
The Catechism does list general hermeneutical principles in its section on the 'Senses of Scripture'.
Certain events (e.g. Genesis creation) are marked out as having used figurative language. Certain events (e.g. Virgin Birth, Resurrection) are taken literally.
EDIT: But you already know this, as an ex-Catholic.
BTW, I'm still waiting for that evidence that Galileo was having pamphlets passed out in churches across Europe.
Thank you for your time.
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is no teaching the Church that the Biblical history of the Israelites should be treated as a modern history textbook either. The Church makes it clear that what is primary is the moral gist, especially as the original readers understood it and in a manner consistent with the Church's moral teaching.
Sure I know that. But I don't ever remember any teaching in the RCC that the history of the Israelites given in the Old Testament could be treated as anything but fact. You seem to be doing another round of "cherry picking" to make it all come out right.
BTW, I'm still waiting for that evidence that Galileo was having pamphlets passed out in churches across Europe.
Thank you for your time.
No one reads Romeo and Juliet and thinks that it is an endorsement of homicide or suicide pacts.
Re: Galileo - I will get to it, but on a weekend. I've already lost far too many hours at work to it! 🙂
Originally posted by lucifershammerI didn't know you considered God and Will Shakesperre as equivalent; interesting theological perspective.
There is no teaching the Church that the Biblical history of the Israelites should be treated as a modern history textbook either. The Church makes it clear that what is primary is the moral gist, especially as the original readers understood it and in a manner consistent with the Church's moral teaching.
No one reads Romeo and Juliet ...[text shortened]... o - I will get to it, but on a weekend. I've already lost far too many hours at work to it! 🙂
The original readers surely understood it as God said it was all right to massacre other peoples. Why would they believe that such an event didn't occur? Surely you are not denying that the Israelites massacred other peoples? Why would they not believe that their God ordered it? They are his "Chosen People" after all.
The Church's moral teaching should be based on the truth; truth should not be fitted to match the Church's moral teachings.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe Church's moral teaching is truth. To put it bluntly, it was the Church that discerned that the Scriptures were divinely inspired - it is the prerogative of the Church to discern how they must be read.
I didn't know you considered God and Will Shakesperre as equivalent; interesting theological perspective.
The original readers surely understood it as God said it was all right to massacre other peoples. Why would they believe that such an event didn't occur? Surely you are not denying that the Israelites massacred other peoples? Why would the ...[text shortened]... d be based on the truth; truth should not be fitted to match the Church's moral teachings.
Most of the OT books were written down long after the Israelites had settled in Canaan. They were clearly not massacring, or planning to massacre, other peoples.
Why would they believe that such an event didn't occur?
Frankly, I don't think they cared about it very much. vistesd is the expert here - but I don't think the Israelites had the same obsession with historical accuracy (well, sort of) that we do.
Surely you are not denying that the Israelites massacred other peoples?
It's possible - those were brutal times.
Why would they not believe that their God ordered it?
They probably did. But they also probably viewed other peoples in black and white terms. And, on such terms, they would've seen the actions as justified.
If you think our modern attitude is very different, consider this - what would you propose to do with an entire county of serial killers or rapists?
I didn't know you considered God and Will Shakesperre as equivalent; interesting theological perspective.
I'm pointing out the difference between a literal reading and a literary reading.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderExcept the part where Jesus's mom concieved without sperm and
Most ancient religious texts written by semi-savages have some degree of historical accuracy. The Bible is not different from others in this regard.
the part where Jesus died on the cross (he wouldn't have been
crucified, a holy man, even if reviled, the Jews would never do that
to another religious one) and then three days later shows up.
There is a book called Jesus Lived in India that makes a pretty
stong case he survived his 'crucifixion' and layed back and spent a
few days getting better then magically showing up and considering
if the Romans catch him again, he better split so went to India.
There are a lot of extremely early monastaries along that road that
a good bit of evidence points to Jesus personally founding them, then
going down the road to start another and then dying in Kashmir.
Makes a LOT of sense to me. Also why do we even call it Christianity
in the first place since this religion we know now was started by Paul?
Also the part where you are BORN with sin. What a sick concept.
Christianity gets you from DAY ONE. SICK SICK SICK. The biggest
con job in 1500 years. Mohammed saw how well that worked he
invented Islam to compete with it with just as much buullshiet.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow's that work?? I assert that something is divinely inspired AND then I get to say how it can be read, too?? Why not just have Pope Joe Blow write his own Bible and cut out this God-middleman?
The Church's moral teaching is truth. To put it bluntly, it was the Church that discerned that the Scriptures were divinely inspired - it is the prerogative of the Church to discern how they must be read.
Most of the OT books were written down long after the Israelites had settled in Canaan. They were clearly not massacring, or planning to m nting out the difference between a literal reading and a literary reading.
BTW, are you saying that the Jews didn't consider the Old Testament as "divinely inspired"? They had to wait around for the RCC to inform them of this?
Originally posted by no1marauderHow's that work?? I assert that something is divinely inspired AND then I get to say how it can be read, too??
How's that work?? I assert that something is divinely inspired AND then I get to say how it can be read, too?? Why not just have Pope Joe Blow write his own Bible and cut out this God-middleman?
BTW, are you saying that the Jews didn't consider the Old Testament as "divinely inspired"? They had to wait around for the RCC to inform them of this?
If you're reading the Bible qua divinely inspired then yes. It's a question of authority.
BTW, are you saying that the Jews didn't consider the Old Testament as "divinely inspired"?
Just point out something before vistesd does - there is no such thing as "Old Testament" to the Jews. There is no New Covenant.
Second, I think there might be technical differences between the way Christians say the OT is divinely inspired and how Jews view the inspiration of those Scriptures.
Third, the Jews didn't really have a well-defined notion of canon until after the Christian era. So, for instance, the Christian Deuterocanonicals which were in the Greek Septuaguint were not part of the Jewish canon when it was drawn up in the 2nd or 3rd cent. AD. There are other books I can't remember as well. By then, the Christians were already finalising their own canon.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerI luvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv when you hair split and nitpick; it's always good for a laugh. Let's try it again:
[b]How's that work?? I assert that something is divinely inspired AND then I get to say how it can be read, too??
If you're reading the Bible qua divinely inspired then yes. It's a question of authority.
BTW, are you saying that the Jews didn't consider the Old Testament as "divinely inspired"?
Just point out something before vist n't remember as well. By then, the Christians were already finalising their own canon.[/b]
A) Are most of the books in what Christians call the "Old Testament" books written by Jews long before the RCC existed?;
B) Were those books considered "divinely inspired" by Jews?;
C) Were they so considered long before the RCC came into existence?;
D) Isn't your assertion the Church is the one who "discerned" that these books were "divinely inspired" ridiculous given that the answers to A, B and C are all undoubtedly "Yes"?
BTW, I missed it in your earlier post; did you consider the murder of children the same as the murder of an "entire country of serial killers and rapists"?
5 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderA) Are most of the books in what Christians call the "Old Testament" books written by Jews long before the RCC existed?
I luvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv when you hair split and nitpick; it's always good for a laugh. Let's try it again:
A) Are most of the books in what Christians call the "Old Testament" books written by Jews long before the RCC existed?;
B) Were those books considered "divinely inspired" by Jews?;
C) Were they so considered nspired" ridiculous given that the answers to A, B and C are all undoubtedly "Yes"?
Depends how long you mean by "long before". But yes, they were written before the RCC existed.
B) Were those books considered "divinely inspired" by Jews?
Quite possibly not in the same way as Christians.
C) Were they so considered long before the RCC came into existence?
See above.
D) Isn't your assertion the Church is the one who "discerned" that these books were "divinely inspired" ridiculous given that the answers to A, B and C are all undoubtedly "Yes"?
Given that the answers are not "undoubtedly 'Yes'" - no.
EDIT: Just because I don't have a propensity for vagueness does not mean I'm nitpicking.