How so?

 

Listening to you guys explain this stuff, the Bible is 100% truth in all aspects. If that's the case, then it's completely contradicting itself. At one point it says one thing, then later says that doesn't matter any more, listen to this instead. How so? When did the first part stop becoming 100% truth?

2nd Timothy 3:16.."All scripture is God breathed"

 

Ace, Paul rarely wrote anything, he had a writer do it for him, but it was his words written while in prison. Notice how he was upset of the women causing problems in the church.

Genesis 1 explains the chronological sequence of the creation of the universe and life on planet earth, and Genesis 2 gives a more detailed explanation of the events that occurred at the end of the sixth day of creation.

 

This. Genesis 1 is the panoramic view of creation. Genesis 2 zooms the lens a bit--particularly on Adam & Eve.

Listening to you guys explain this stuff, the Bible is 100% truth in all aspects. If that's the case, then it's completely contradicting itself. At one point it says one thing, then later says that doesn't matter any more, listen to this instead. How so? When did the first part stop becoming 100% truth?

 

You have to bear in mind the fact that the Bible wasn't written as a single piece. It is an assembled compilation of sacred writings, which were composed over the period hundreds and thousands of years. As a result, there is no way for all of the books to flow nicely and evenly from one piece to the next... There are some things that when not taken in the entire context, could certainly give cause to have confusion.

 

When you look at it though, Christianity and Catholicism has many common beliefs and many of their roots in Judaism. That's why the Bible starts with the Jewish books of the Pentateuch. Then, as prophets came along and preached their inspired Word of God, those things do, in fact, often conflict with the teachings of the earlier books, written earlier in time in accordance with the Hebrew traditions. As more prophets came along, more differences arise. Still, we keep the books of the Old Testament for the sake of maintaining the common beliefs and roots from which Christianity has arisen.

^So if all the writers were "inspired" by God and all were accurate and the "truth", how come so many Gospels and other books have been omitted? Sounds like those who compiled the Bible decided to pick and choose what they wanted included and what they wanted omitted.

Most of the opinions on this thread is why I don't to go to church anymore.

 

 

Does this mean women cannot teach the children? Does this mean a woman cannot have an administrative position at a private catholic school? A woman is to stay quiet in church? Doesn't sound like Christianity.

It means none of those things.

^So if all the writers were "inspired" by God and all were accurate and the "truth", how come so many Gospels and other books have been omitted? Sounds like those who compiled the Bible decided to pick and choose what they wanted included and what they wanted omitted.

 

That's exactly what they did. The writings, to be certain, are believed to the inspired word of God but the Bible is most definitely a product of the Church. It's also the reason Catholics don't believe that the Bible is the only source of divinely-revealed truth.

That's exactly what they did. The writings, to be certain, are believed to the inspired word of God but the Bible is most definitely a product of the Church. It's also the reason Catholics don't believe that the Bible is the only source of divinely-revealed truth.

 

Exactly...and this is also why we have to have faith. We have to have faith that the holy men who compiled the Bible were inspired to select the most correct and pertinent writings to be included in it. This is why faith is one of our primary theological virtues.

This. Genesis 1 is the panoramic view of creation. Genesis 2 zooms the lens a bit--particularly on Adam & Eve.

 

Sorry but I subscribe to the understanding that they are the same event but from two different sources. Most Biblical scholars have believed this for years.

Sorry but I subscribe to the understanding that they are the same event but from two different sources. Most Biblical scholars have believed this for years.

 

To be honest, I don't believe either chapter to be literally true, but I consider both to be truth myths, like old First Nation stories.

 

Son, it may not have happened exactly like this, but what I am about to tell you is true.

 

The true part of Genesis is that God is the metaphysical creator. How long it took and the exact sequence and what process God used are irrelevant. The story is simply told in a way that is easy for us to understand.

^So if all the writers were "inspired" by God and all were accurate and the "truth", how come so many Gospels and other books have been omitted? Sounds like those who compiled the Bible decided to pick and choose what they wanted included and what they wanted omitted.

 

With regards to the Old Testament, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but they basically deferred to the Jewish tradition.

 

With regards to the New Testament, there were numerous criteria. A couple of key ones, IMO are: 1) All the letters in the New Testament were written by men who walked with Jesus, or were involved in the missionary work of his apostles in the early church. (Hebrews may be the exception, since the author/source is unknown.) 2) All the letters are dated in the first century AD, minimizing the time lapse between the events written about and the actual writing of the letter. It is generally accepted that these two factors would lend more reliability and credibility that what was written was faithful to the events.

 

Some reasons for rejecting letters...

 

Unreliable authorship - many letters were named after apostles, but the dating of the letters makes that impossible. For example, if someone wrote the Gospel of Peter in 200 AD, then its obvious that Peter didn't write that, nor was he a direct source of the information

 

The writings clearly contradict the accepted writings of Paul, Peter, Luke, etc. Who are you going to trust? Something authored by a man who walked with Jesus and died for that faith, or something written a hundred years later by an unknown source that contradicts the former?

 

 

That's a brief introduction to the subject, but there's a plethora of information availabe on how are current Bible was arrived at if you're interested in it. It is not as "picky and choosy" a process as many would suggest.

Listening to you guys explain this stuff, the Bible is 100% truth in all aspects. If that's the case, then it's completely contradicting itself. At one point it says one thing, then later says that doesn't matter any more, listen to this instead. How so? When did the first part stop becoming 100% truth?

 

When the purpose for the first part has run its course. Then a new purpose emrges and the rules change. God no longer needed the jewish population to thrive. The christian church needed to thrive so the old dietary laws and sacrificial rituals were no longer necessary.

When the purpose for the first part has run its course. Then a new purpose emrges and the rules change. God no longer needed the jewish population to thrive. The christian church needed to thrive so the old dietary laws and sacrificial rituals were no longer necessary.

 

So the Church changed, correct? So why is everyone so against changing it now to allow women become priests?

 

You guys have been saying, the Church doesn't change, yet here you're saying it's okay for it to change. So which is it?

 

Is the Church allowed to change, or is change bad? You can't have it both ways.

So the Church changed, correct? So why is everyone so against changing it now to allow women become priests?

 

You guys have been saying, the Church doesn't change, yet here you're saying it's okay for it to change. So which is it?

 

Is the Church allowed to change, or is change bad? You can't have it both ways.

 

Actually, we can and we do.

^Oh I know they do. And that's what makes the Catholic Church look bad. :lol: