What do you know about the Bible?

A lot...off and on during my childhood my parents were extremely religious, but then they just kind of backed off and now my mother still is very religious.

I think anyone who was raised with a religious parent has a basic understandinng of what is written. I have been so surprised to find out what we aren't told, and it often leads to people not understanding the meanings.

But I "have" read a good part of the Bible when I was younger so have come to my own conclusions...so I think that is good...I didn't just "take someone else's interpretation and accept it alone!

I think that is the biggest mistake some people make is waiting for some body to tell them what it all means. You are growing in a good direction then my friend! Hugs and Blessings!

I have very up and down feelings regarding the Bible. I was raised Roman Catholic and decided in my late teens that Catholocism isn't the right religion for me. I have my own beliefs as to spiritual and religious mentionings. However, I do believe that there is a higher power. I consider myself to be Christian. I have not found a Church that suits me just yet. Many are glorified churches here in Arizona and I just don't like that. Many guilt you into donating, and right now I can't put food on the table let alone make a donation. There are many controversial writings in the Bible, in my opinion. I do not agree with the Bible's view on gay/lesbian relationships. Maybe then it was ok to say things like that, but thousands of years later.. things change, society changes and people find happiness in different ways now. In a way, the Bible makes me feel like the "rules" set forth thousands of years ago are supposed to be upheld forever.. I don't feel that way at all.

I really hope that my comment hasn't offended you in any way. These are my honest opinions. I could go on for days about the Bible. I was forced to read it SEVERAL times as a child and have blocked a lot of it from my memory. I do have faith, a small amount but it is my own and I am comfortable with that.

Sex was put between men and women not for the greatest pleasure they can obtain but to replinish the earth with more people.  It is Lucifer that tells people sex can be any way you like it, just aim for your greatest delight and pleasure.  Sex between a man and a man and sex between a woman and a woman equals "uncleanness" and this is listed in the bible under what is "unrighteous."  I don't hate anyone that is deceived into believing homosexuality is alright and it was a mistake God made at their birth, they should have been a girl but turned out a boy.  God does not make mistakes like that, but Lucifer tells people these lies and deceives them into believing this so they will continue down a road that leads straight to the pit where he is destined to go, and why is because Lucifer hates everybody.  Jesus loves everybody.  Jesus does not give anyone permission to be a homosexual or to have a sex change.  Lucifer is the author of all such nonsense as this, and after he gets people to perform such acts on each other, he turns away and laughs his head off, just like the person on the street that suddenly grabs someone's purse and runs away, they think they have won, and so does Lucifer when he deceives people into such "uncleanness" as this.

Sex is only to replenish the earth with more human beings and was meant only to be between men and women to accomplish this.  God made it enjoyable so that men and women would be lured to one another often enough to accomplish the replenishing of the earth with more human beings.

Lucifer is the author of homosexuality.

I definitely didn't mean for that comment to go in that direction. Each person is entitled to his/her own beliefs. I'm not going to go into this any further. You have your beliefs, and I have mine.. lets leave it at that...

Oh my, where to begin...

Sarah,

I am not ever offended by somebody stating their opinions or beliefs. It is when stating those things requires them to bring down others or are hateful to others that I get offended. Needless to say, I am not easily offended anyway. I think that I have found it is the church not the denomination that calls me. I have been a member of Grace Lutheran for 10 years or so, but it is not that I think the Lutherans have all the answers. It is because the minister answers to God, doesn't believe in judgment of others, and everybody looks out for those around them, whether they are members or not.

I believe that the laws God set out where done for reasons. They didn't have the medical treatments, and solutions we do, so many diseases that today have been neutralized or rendered minor, were a lot more serious in the old testament times. That is why there were things they had to do if somebody had certain symptoms or signs.

However, it is not so much the content of what is written as the history of it.

Connie,

Lucifer can only warp what God has made. He thrives on hatred and condemnation. Jesus came to teach LOVE, Forgiveness, and understanding. Hugs and Blessings.

Sarah,

I never intended to go there either. I respect your  beliefs, and find a lot more of the love and understanding I learned from Christ then other comments. I am not trying to start hatred. I wonder why there is always a need to jump up in judgment of others?

That is the way of the world Lisa. I try to stay neutral and choose my words wisely as to not offend or cause tension. Maybe I should have left my comment to myself on this one??? I do have strong beliefs, but they are my own. I am open minded, maybe more-so than others. If you'd like, I can delete my initial comment... might save us both some trouble???

There is no need to do that Sarah. You have no need to apologize or remove your beliefs. It is through discussion, which should be done with respect to each other's points of view, that we grow and learn. I appreciate your willingness to comment!!

" it was a mistake God made at their birth, they should have been a girl but turned out a boy. God does not make mistakes like that." -Connie

Connie, first please understand I am not even coming close to challenging your beliefs. As you will see, I am not questioning anything but presenting a medical/scientific fact to you on this one (quoted above) point.

You state that God does not make mistakes like the example you gave. Can you answer a question, please?

If it is impossible for this type of "mistake" to be made, then how do you explain infants that are born with the organs of both male and female sexes?

While it is more rare for this "deformity" to happen, it does indeed happen. The parents of the infant have to chose which organs to keep.

Men and women are truely different, Mars VS Venus. Chemical make-up is different. I feel it is possible for an individual to have the body of one gender and the "internal (none organ) make-up" of the opposite gender.

Until you can get up close and personal with someone who feels this way, I wouldn't be so fast to judge that a "mistake" was not made.

Well said Melanie! These things occur, that is medical.

Thank you for your input!

Lynn- That was a good attempt at avoiding my question.

Whether it is a "mistake" or not does not matter. The fact is that abnormalities do in fact exist, even ones regarding gender.

You make it sound like it is impossible for a man to be man with all of the male organs yet be a woman from birth because God does not make "mistakes"

Well, call it a challenge, anything you want, but the possibility does exist. How can it not if an abnormality such as I used as an example exists?

You are very good at twisting people's words and point of views, and at keeping your mind very closed. That is much more scary in my opinion.

I am attending Liberty University online right now Psychology~Christian Counseling emphasis.  It's eye opening isn't it?????  I love it and all the learning based on the Bible.  I think that it doesn't matter who wrote the Gospels, that they were written by man but given to man by God.

The fact is, that many of the Gospels were written within 70 years of Jesus life. There are very few differences in wording among the copies of the manuscripts that have been found.. These facts alone are amazing to me. Unfortunately, by not telling the history of the bible, we leave new believers open to those who spread doubt, because of things that aren't understood.

"  . . but does the fact that they were not all written by those that they are named for matter to the gospel? What say you?"

I say, why are you stating such a thing as a fact?

Because it IS a fact? Another question christians should ask is "why are so many "Gospels" left OUT of the Bible. One good example is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene! Could it be because during the time of the Council of Nicaea the known world was a male dominated world?

Or, do we want people to know the truth about Jesus coming the aid of the prostitute about to be stoned and how that appears NOWHERE in original scripture, but was added several hundred years later in the margins by a well meaning monk?

Thank you Spartan.

The issue is that by NOT knowing the history of the bible, the control, and the knowledge of the truth is not being shared. GOD's word is being decided by men who have since tried to put their own words there. Yes, we can get translations that are accurate. There are manuscripts dating back to the 1st century, and most of them only have minor wording issues, but by not teaching these things, we are leaving more open to ignorance and distortion. It is well known the the RKJV bible was translated behind closed doors, and NONE of the bearers of the original manuscripts made it there. It is things like this that causes doubt.

Spartan,

The church, even now, reviews manuscripts and looks for consistancy among the things attributed to Jesus. It looks to outside sources to try to verify most of what is contained in them. Many of the scrolls not accepted by Christian churchs are due to tampering from Hellenistic sources at the time of their creation. It is uncertain how much is authentically from the author it is attributed to and how much has been "pencilled in". It is because of the distortion of man that we should know the history, and understand why books were or were not included in the bible. I am stating that there are things we as Christians NEED to know to share and understand the life of Christ. I am not taking away from the Gospels. Luke was a physician who was a disciple of one of the apostles. He was a very educated man, and that is why his accounting is more detailed and chronological than Mark. The author of Mark grouped events based on area, not on a timeline. I have known people who were confused by the problems with sequence of events and such. Part of it comes from the fact that some of the writers took from the same source, and Matthew and Luke both took from Mark, which was the first one written.

Spartan,

"Because it IS a fact?"

Because you think it is?

Talk to Biblical scholars John, you might learn a few things.

Ditto what Lisa said...LOL

Lisa,

(I already have a Lord, Lisa, and his name is not Lisa ; )

I ask again; Why are you stating such things are facts? Do you believe that the "Biblical scholars" you happen to hear from and accept as authorities, are infallible?

John,

It is through much thought and prayer that I was lead to take these classes. God has a purpose for me, and helping to have a greater understanding of the life of Jesus and his word is the work that God has put in my heart. I am NOT, nor have I ever proclaimed myself Lord. God gives knowledge and understanding, and he also gives wisdom to those who study to understand. The scholars are no more infallible then you are John. We are all human. The scholars are working to show how the bible fits into historical literature, instead of being claimed as fable by those who do not know its history. The facts I am stating are things that have been studied by Christian Scholars, in language studies, and in the study of the society of the time. They are increasing the proof that the bible does fit into historical context, and that many previously thought things that people used to condemn the bible are now being show to be wrong!! Why do you feel the need to attack somebody who loves God and is trying to show the beauty of what He has given to us, by understanding all about it?

Lisa,

"The scholars are no more infallible then you are John. We are all human"

Then I suggest you speak of their opinions as possabilities, rather than facts.

and I suggest that their research has more fact than your opinion.

Well said Lisa!

Lynn,

I don't really understand what you are talking about. I merely questioned the assertion that it is a "fact that they were not all written by those that they are named for" . . . I do not understand how Lisa could possibly know that as a fact. That Lisa chose to become abusive of me for asking why she calls that a fact, when she herself says the researchers are fallible, is not my problem.

John,

I have not become abusive of you in any way shape or form. I have not called you names, insulted your family, nor I have said anything other then pointing out things to try to get you to widen your view. I will say then, if you object to fact, which I have not said was fact, but you decided was implied, that research indicates that the Gospels were written, with oral tradition, and other sources by the people named, though many mistake them for the apostles, when they were often the disciples of the apostles. If you read through the comments, you will see that I did not say the person named by the book did the writing. It is based on the style and study of the writing that they have been able to determine which of the Gospels were to be considered unadulterated accounts, as opposed to those left out of the Bible.

Lisa,

" . . nor I have said anything other then pointing out things to try to get you to widen your view. "

And just how, pray tell, do you know what my view is? Did your Biblical scholars teach you of me? Did you gaze into my mind with a crystal ball? Did a spirit visit you in the night, and whisper "facts" about my views in your ear? Please, explain how you could even know what my views on this subject are?

I am sorry if expressing disbelief of Biblical scholars ability to research facts is not your view, but you have made it appear that it was. I have not made any claim to  clairvoyance or ESP, nor do I think I have assumed anything you have not stated. If you have a habit of stating things that are not your view, you should expect to be misunderstood often.

Been there, done that, didn't like it, moved on, did it again, still didn't like it, took a nap, ate some lunch, watched a little TV, took a walk, came back, and ended up doing it again....:>)

Lisa,

"I am sorry if expressing disbelief of Biblical scholars ability to research facts is not your view, but you have made it appear that it was."

Only in your presumptive imagination. In reality-land, I questioned the use of the term 'fact', in this sentence you wrote;

" . . "  . . but does the fact that they were not all written by those that they are named for matter to the gospel?"

I do not believe that you or any other scholars actually know that to be a fact, but merely hold such as possible, likely, or whatever. That's it, that's all I've expressed.

um, Berf, help me out a little here, I got lost around that last corner...LOL

;-)

don't you think your classes is what is teaching you a lot of the "history" behind the scriptures?  Even those lessons are written and revised many times most likely by a man or woman or both.

I say:  I don't know much about the bible unless God and the Holy Ghost reveals something to me in the hour that it wants it spoke.  I might not remember that same thing I just spoke or wrote again in my entire life.  My experiences with this have been moment by moment.  It has not been something I can memorize and retain for my own use later.  The real Holy Ghost has a mind of its own.  It is separate from man, woman, God and Jesus, and the angels in heaven.  I feel it is the great teacher and spiritual guide, but again, it is not something that can be taught in school or college.

The history of religion and whatever researchers have found out about the days of our past and the days Jesus walked the earth is what people learn in school along with that school's particular traditions.  Don't you think?

I am planning to go to St. Mary's of the Woods and this is a Catholic based school.  I don't plan on taking on any of their particular Catholic traditions just as I let loose of every "Pentecostal" tradition that I cannot find real solid evidence through scripture reading and praying for guidance from the Holy Ghost are actually laws of God.

So my opinion of colleges and schools teaching is the same as the individual churches.  I basically sat in school at a Pentecostal church for about four straight years.  Some that was taught did come from the Holy Ghost, other things were their basic Pentecostal traditions.

Anyone who really wants to learn about God, salvation, what is right and wrong just needs to repent, receive the spirit of God, which is the Holy Ghost and the Great Teacher that will lead and guide a person into all the truths.  You won't find this in any college or school.  It is found in secret on bended knee.  Then the Father will reward you openly with his words as you ought to speak them, and in the time and the situation that they should be spoke.  The Holy Ghost is the Great Teacher.

Connie, was yopur first comment here on sex inspired by your Holy Ghost ?

Very well said Lynn

Lisa...Have you gotten into studying in of Martin Marty's work yet?

My current class on the Gospels is using a book by Robert Stein. I don't believe i have run across that name yet.

And you call yourself a LUTHERAN!  (heeheeheeee)  Check out Martin Marty. I think you will like his writings. :-)

yea yea yeah...LOL

1 I am LUTHERAN

2 my school isn't

3 :-P

Martin Marty may have been called an American Lutheran scholar, but not all Lutheran dominations are the same....some do not study what he wrote.

Both the Missouri and Wisconsin synods are more conservative and do not go along with some of the teachings of the ELCA churches.

Yup, after checking...Martin Marty is ELCA....

That explains it, my church belongs to the Missouri Synod...whoever thought Evangelical would be the libral ones..>LOL

I was born into, baptized into, and confirmed into the Misery Synod. I only switched to the ELCA when I reached the age of reason.

Martin Marty, though now retired, is considered to be one of the most profound Theologians of our time, and he taught Theology and Law at the University of Chicago College of Divinity attended by ALL denominations of the Lutheran Church...even the nutjobs from the Wisconsin Synod. ;-)

When speaking of biblical scholars, it is important to acknowledge that they don't speak with one voice.  There are some things on which many of them agree, but even those who have spent virtually a lifetime studying the Bible do not all agree.  

That is true, especially on how certain words are translated. I am just talking about the more recently established data that has a consensus of agreement. I don't see how anyone can think that a Human can possibly understand all there is to know about an infinite being. God teaches us what he needs us to understand.

Good point, Lynn.  But unfortunately some don't acknowledge that they don't know it all and try to recreate everyone in their own image.

“All scripture is inspired by God….” In 2 Peter 1:20-21, Peter reminds us “know this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, … but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” The Bible itself tells us that it is God who is the author of His book.

Then why were some left out if all are inspired by God? Some written by the apostles themselves, those closest to Jesus in his time on earth?

What Peter said was that his scripture was inspired by God, everybody else's of course was on shaky ground.

The majority of the New Testament books were written 30 to 100 years after the death of Jesus the Christ. No one knows who wrote them.

 

It is also a fact that before the Romans hijacked the Christian religion, no followers of Christ believed exactly the same thing. There were as many divisions in the religion as there are today.

 

Why were so many books left out?

It didn't serve the Roman Empire's agenda. Most of the beliefs attributed to Christianity today are derivative of the Pagan religions of the romans.

For example, the story of Jesus... was a story of the Pagan Faith attributed to Mithra.

We actually do know who wrote them...Paul and John both wrote a bunch of the books...

James was written by the brother of Jesus. Paul, formerly known as Saul wrote many of the books that are in the form of letters to various churches. The writings of the New Testament were written before the Roman Empire accepted the Christians. They were still highly persecuted when they were written. The Gospel of Luke, is attributed to a doctor named Luke who had become a disciple of one of the apostles. It is late and I don't remember exactly which at the moment. The writing is considerably more educated then some of the other Gospels. The accepted Gospels are ones that they could find that fit 3 criteria. One of those was avoiding the Hellinistic influences of some translators. 

It is debatable that Paul wrote the letters. It is more widely believed and accepted that a student of Paul's wrote the book of Ephesians.

 

Oh my Lisa - you are one brave woman to want to discuss religion:)

 

Heh! Rose that was my first thought also. Then I thought... You know it's kind of sad that this is true.

I have to say that what makes me sad is that Christians can't hold a discussion on beliefs, or even the history of the Bible, without somebody attacking somebody and calling them evil. We learn through discovery and discussion, as well as prayer. God created scholars as much as laymen.

I am way out of this one I am a Mormon and i beleive in  my religion and am not ashamed to say so

I have no problem with you believing in your religion. Do Mormons accept the Bible? I am asking because I want to learn and understand. I just wanted to see if anyone outside of a college classroom knows the history of the bible.

Hi Lisa

Who wrote the bible? Good question. You might want to read three books that are available if you haven't already.

The Bible Unearthed - Israel Finkel and Neil Asher Silberman.

Misqouting Jesus - Bart D. Ehrman

Who Wrote the Bible - Richard Elliot Friedman

I will have to check into those books Robert, thank you.

"Misquoting Jesus" is an eye opener, Lisa!

Amen to Spartan ...

I've enjoyed reading both your post as well as the comments, Lisa. I think your classes sound fascinating and I've often been tempted to take similar ones. What always deters me, however, is the fact that once I'm finished writing for various assignments, and tending to family responsibilities, I don't think I would have the presence of mind to study.

I do hope you'll write more about your studies here, as I think you could provide a great deal of insight for those of us who'd love to learn more about the Bible.

Thank you Kimberly. My goal in starting this discussion was not to attack or belittle ANYONE's beliefs, but to work together to find the greatest possible understanding of the history of the Bible. I am open to polite, logical discussion that many here have shown.

"find it curious that churches still keep laymen in ignorance as they did in the times of the Roman Catholic Church being the only Christian church."

Lisa- I find it even more curious that so many people are willing to sit in church and depend on someone else to give them this education. :)

 

That is always been an issue with me. If you depend on a minister to tell you what the bible says and means, then your soul is out of your hands. We grow up in church, where very few are taught to look, study, and find out. One of the first things I learned when starting my classes, is that you have to find out the source of information to determine if it is credible. Are the books selected the most credible witness to the life of Christ? It is a basic question, yet often only asked by those disillusioned with God or the church, so we need to ask our selves these questions if we hope to be able to answer those who warp the answers to draw others away from God. How can anybody put on "the whole armor of God" when they only know where the shin covers are?

Never forget that Martin Luther believed he was a good Catholic to his dying day.  Far too many people go to church to listen to someone else's point of view and they come away with a very distorted and egocentric view of faith because of that. You and I both know that a "true" church service is designed to do one thing. It is designed to bring you to the alter for Communion.  As one Pastor said to me, "the sermon is the LEAST important part of a church service".

My pastor is an avid reader of all things Martin Luther. I know what you are saying. !

Wow theres alot of very interesting comments here. I myself choose not to devote myself to any religion. They all have their positives and negatives.

You are right, they do.

Excellent post.  He is in all of us so the answers are right there.  He even kept it simple for us - to love and forgive.  People can adulterate the details of His word but can't touch the Holy Spirit in us all.  We have a direct connection and a conscience to guide us.

Thanks Stacey. It is something everybody should think about sometime.

Let join in with those who believe that the only rule we need to worry about is the golden rule. Doctrine, dogma, how many times we pray and whose celestial butt we kiss means nothing. Everyone in the world is connected to the same spirit. The divisions we see are created by man not by God. We are truly one and we should treat each other as such.

To Love Him is to love yourSelf ... and then all other selves because every self is a part of the One Whole that IS GOD ... the God of the Book is generally seen as something "different", too often anthropomorphised.

The Son is NOT the Father, he is our brother ...

BTW Lisa I grew up in the American Lutheran Church which through several mergers has become a part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. My older sister married a Missouri Synod man (Back in the 1940s). When they came to visit they would attend our church but they dared not tell there own pastor that they had. It was the first time I was aware of the conservative/liberal split in religious circles.

My mother went to a conference in the 1950s where both ALC and Missouri Synod people were present. The Missouri Synod people would not pray with the ALC folks. That really ticked my mother off.

 

I grew up in the Southern Baptist church, which probably is the most narrow in their viewpoint. Even though the church was progressive for a southern Baptist, it was still a very negative upbringing at hte time.

I am an  atheist, Lisa, but I was raised Catholic and studied mostly the New Testament when young.  I honor all religious texts that preach love and respect for all humanity.  Therefore, I find the New Testament a much healthier set of writings than the Old, overall.  But, I have also studied a bit (nowhere near your level) the history of the biblical collections and translations.  After being an organist and choir director in a variety of denominations for almost 30 years, I do find it humorous how some religious leaders spend a lot more time parsing words for meanings aligning with their particular biases, rather than gleaning the overall message of love from Jesus.  It is pure ego that destroys many religious missions - the need to be better, to be absolutely right, to attract the most followers and money.   It so turned me off over the years that I have come to the conclusion that it is not worth my time...not one minute.  I have pledged to try to live each day to its fullest, treat all with love and respect, and do the most good I can in the world while I am here.  Beyond that, I wish you well in your studies - you certainly seem to be a good person from what I've read of your comments here.

 

Thank you Sheryl, and you have shown more Christian charity and kindness in your writing then some of the ones who profess Christianity. It is a sad state that I have realized that when I am following Christ, i have been told I am not like most Christians.

Hugs and Blessings!

It is sad, Lisa.  I sometimes wonder when reading some of these people's writings on Gather if they would say what they say if they were standing in front of Jesus looking into his eyes.  I cannot even fathom that they would.

Blessings to you, too.  You are a beacon of light here....and there should be many more like you. :-)

Sheryl, sad to say, but far too many of them would not even recognize Jesus, they would more than likely call him the anti-Christ ... or at best a false prophet.

Lynn - if you are truly a follower of Jesus, then you believe that we meet Jesus face-to-face every day, that god is in every stone, every tree, every part of this earth.   I personally do not believe that there is any 'after life'.  In fact, if there is, I'd rather not even know it.  I think Jesus' message was that if we actually lived the way he taught, we would achieve heaven right here on earth, during our lives.  If you want to get a real dose of that, read the Gospel of Thomas, one of the writings extracted from the original texts by the church (my theory is that it pointed out the fact that the divine was in all, including inanimate objects, and the religious leaders saw this kind of teaching as dangerous to their power and domination).

Sheryl has it figured out quit well ... describes GOD rather than the OT God.

You have put a lot of faith and trust in a small group of religious leaders back in the 4th century, Lynn.  I don't believe they are infallible, nor innocent of trying to retain power within the church leadership.  Seems they left out quite a few writings and changed quite a few meanings in order to align with their particular views. 

I'll stick to my own, as I believe that if there truely is a powerful creator, and he/she/it did create the world in their image, then they created everything as part of the entire complex.  STopping short of that actually negates much of what the Old and New Testaments teach.  To try to view the creation/universe in terms of 'man' or 'humanity' only is based on pure self-interest and ego, not on anything that makes sense.  And leads 'man' to habits of destruction, including self-destruction as we're seeing now with the decaying environment.

Wow, interesting discussion.  Been there, it's all moot except the love.

I think the authors of the Bible have been attritubed to many different people and I'm not qualified to name any of them.  I can only speculate on a few.  I think Moses is given credit for the first 5 books of the old Testament.  Please note that I have said "I think", don't remember those lessons, too long ago.

I don't think it's necessarily that they keep things from us, Lisa.  I think it's more that people don't care enough to find out about things - for themselves or by asking the right questions in Bible study or Sunday school classes.  And today, with our kids not being able to sit still, I don't imagine much learning is taking place in Sunday school classes with volunteers, if they can't squeeze much teaching in at public schools with professional teachers.  :)

 

I'm not sure it really matters what we know with our minds about the Bible as much as we know with our hearts.  The closer one gets to God, the more one reads the Bible while growing closer to God, the more we understand the words.  And the more we understand the words, the more we can feel God's presence and we can feel what was going through the minds of those whom God used to write the words.

 

In my lifetime, I've been blessed with some awesome pastors and  teachers.  As a young child, in the Methodist church, I was blessed to have a teacher who refused to use the lessons of the 60s (which were basically coloring pages) and instead used the King James version of the Bible to teach.  I was confirmed in the United Methosidt church, and the pastor was an older man who many of the people my parents age disliked.  But he saw to it that we learned about the Disciples, about the Roman Catholic Church, about Luther, then about Wesley and the founders of the churches that combined to make up the UM church.  We studied the prayers, Scripture, and creeds, and had to be able to both put them in our own words and explain what the words meant.  He made us write our own psalms.  We had to memorize the names of each book of the Bible and be able to tell who was the supposed author and give a small summary of the book.  It was a lot of work, and once he was transferred, no other confirmation class had to work that hard.  :)

As an adult, I have chosen to learn on my own, plus I have taken classes through Moody Bible College.  When you position yourself in classes with all kinds of people from all kinds of denominations, it can be interesting.  In one class, we studied Isaiah.  Difficult reading and understanding that one.  After class, though, we all stuck around and talked about rapture, pre-trib, tribulation, post-trib,  and dispensationaliasm.  Now those were some great discussions.  Often the teachers hung out with us after class too so they could have some input into the discussions.

Lynn, I would ask what you meant by "my denomination - Presbyterian - is the reason for Methodism to start."  From the history I've read of the Methodist church, Wesley was Anglican, and had no desire to start a new church when he and his friends met to study.  From everything I've read, Luther posted his complaints about the Roman Catholic church in the early 1500s and Calvin began the Presbyterian church in the mid to late 1500s, right?  But John and Charles Wesley and Whitfield were more like missionaries for the Anglican church/Church of England when they came to the U.S. in the 1700s.  Wasn't the Presbyterian Church more the church of Scotland?  Today's United Methodist Church is a combination of churches from the 1960s, including Methodist and Evangelical United Brethren - which both strarted in the 1700s.

 

As kids, no, we were not taught about Luther, Calvin, or even really about Wesley.  I think most United Methodists today know very little about any of them.

I've learned more about the history of the UM church since I became a certified lay speaker for the church.  One of the classes required for certification was the history of the church.  It's quite fascinating.

IN my text book called Core Christianity there are 13 reasons why the Apocryphia were not added to the bible.

The 13 main arguments against adding the Apocryphia to the cannon are:1- they are weak in style and organization, 2-contain historical and geographical errors, 3-Old Testament in nature but mostly written in Greek, 4-not quoted by Christ or any old testament writers, 5-no messianic prophecies in Apocryphia, 6-no claim of Divine Inspiration, 7-no plan of salvation, 8-not included in original Hebrew canon, 9-Philo never referred to them, 10-Jerome did not include them in Scripture, 11-spiritual level is low, 12-implies doctrine contrary to Scripture and 13-was not considered part of canon until 1546 AD.  

Most every defendant in a criminal case has as many reasons as to why he did or did not do something.

Following the first two Commandments is what matters. As for our present so called Bible. It is and was used as a political document. I have read some of the original texts and much was simply mistranslated and I believe this purposeful. I have read every book of the Old and New Testament. I am a Christian who refuses to accept ignorance from the pulpit. Real people of God do not preach division and hatred. Too many American churches are in Satan's parlor.

I agree William! Thank you for stopping in!

Have you not read what Jesus said.

There is much more, but few have done academic research without a prior political/religious agenda. You should understand the Bible is also a literary document, full of era specific metaphor and in the New Testament an audience specific targeted message.

Sorry but much of what I see in our American churches is what I said. That is my opinion. Any organisation that preaches hate of things contrary to their world view is not of God. Hatred is being served from the Devil's parlour.

So much of what William mentions being preached is not of GOD, indicating to me that God just might be a concoction of the Devil's parlour ...

If the message in the sermon or Mass, or other religious gathering is contrary to the teachings of that religion, then would you call such a meeting to be infused with God's spirit? Having grown up extremely influenced by a fundamentalist Baptist church and having attended Baptist Bibble College in Springfield, Mo., I have very strong views of what a church should and should not be. Any church that preaches divisive hatred, descrimination or harm to others for their viewpoint is evil period. I don't care what label or what cause involved. Jesus said the Ten Commandments are all contained in the first two commandments. I sometimes wonder if Christians actually read the Bible or let others tell them what they want the Bible to say. Preachers who twist the Word of God into messages contrary to the message of Christ are of Satan!!! Could I say that any clearer. People who go to church and accept such messages of hate have no excuse and are blinded by Satan's logic. I will not be quiet because I think such hate being preached from many pulpits in the USA is blasphemy!!! If you attend church to worship and to build up others with sound teachings and care, then the warmth of God's love is there. If you attend church for other reason, Satan's hand is on your heart. I will not step foot into a church I believe is actually the Devil's den. Can I say this any plainer? 

Well said William, plain, clear and TRUE !

I believe most peope understand the gist of my message. You obviously do not understand, choose not to understand or are playing Devil's advocate. You twist my words as if they were specific attacks on individuals, although my comments are directed at the generalized politicalization of our churches. The American model seems built on confrontation, which you seem to enjoy. I'm quite confused on your Biblical quote, since it supports my view, but your language is so confrontational in tone that even this you disagree. I hope you find the truth. I have literally read the entire Old and New Testament and went to Baptist Bible College in Springfield. Mo. I have also studied ancient texts written mostly in Greek (but ancient Greek language is different in many word meanings that that of our present age. I do not not speak lightly. I do speak straight and do not twist words or say things of just conjecture about what another has said, except in humor. I'm not stubborn except with truth and you have inadvertently supported me it seems.

Do you know The Scientific Method? When looking at research, one has to understand the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. I have read quite thoroughly on Biblical interpretations and I can't think of one book that did not have a subjective tilt. Too often a person gets fame, not from research, but because he says what seems reasonable and pleasing. With all the seems to be contradictions, especially in the Gospels and the gross misinterpretation of many chapters in Paul's letters, the square one approach is to see if anything quoted from the KJV or other translations is contrary to the message of Jesus Christ. Without that central to the discussion, it is a blind alley of men twisting words.

Personally, I read a 1960 Confraternity Catholic Bible because the notes are excellent.

I'm a bit confused at why you are being confrontational. Is there anything I said not true? 

I'm sorry you have onion skin. You should look at yourself and how negative your words were directed at me, but I doubt you will. My conversation with you is finished. I do not enjoy talking to cold stone walls. (I did not even bother reading your comment after your third sentence. One does not debate with personal accusation. It just isn't acceptable etiquette).

I think Bart Ehrman is one of the best writers on this topic of who wrote what when for the Bible. He can be a real eye opener. As an atheist, I can probably not contribute much to this discussion of a positve nature. Rather than start arguments, I will try to be civil and just shut up now.

I have read some of Bart Ehrman's work and his massive research is very impressive. The Moody Bible Institute is well known for those doing research. However, let me show you a review of his work.

'

If anything is certain about Misquoting Jesus, it is that Bart Ehrman's skepticism, not his objective or responsible handling of the facts, led him to the position he now advocates. An objective and unbiased investigation, on the other hand, will lead you to understand that the Bibles we now possess are not based on "error-ridden" manuscripts, as Ehrman would have you believe. They are based on the oldest surviving forms of the original biblical texts-manuscripts which (as Bart Ehrman himself admits), are "no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote" (p. 62, emphasis Ehrman's).

Truth is not supposition and I in no way intended this to be confrontational.

Truth (short of GOD) is relative, and subjective, as are our interpretations of things ... Bert Ehrman's "subjectivity" agrees with my own ... as best I recall years after reading him. :-)

All matters of GOD are truly subjective and spiritual, something best learned form our own intuitive connection rather than from seeking literal meanings in fallible books. IMnsHO based upon personal experience.

The Bible.  Ick.

To understand the Bible, we need to understand the mentality very different from our own. For us, it's important whether such-and-such story actually took place in the given time or not. For them, it was important what such-and-such story MEANT - what message it brought, what aspects of God's relationship with the community of believers it described. Moreover, our predecessors never viewed the authorship in our sense of the word. They didn't knew any copyright laws; they didn't consider it dishonest to ascribe their own works to a respected authority of the past precisely because it was that very authority and tradition that mattered, not the actual authorship.That's why to take the claims in regard to Biblical books' authorship literally would mean to be blind to their real purpose and provenance.

Blessings and best wishes - S.

 

 

Excellent points.

Well said Sveta, that is something that I have never given a thought to ... shows how important "intention" is.

You are very right, and reflect a lot of what I see as well!! Hugs and Blessings!!

ah Lisa, this sentence stopped me because i always was amazed at that same thing.

" I have found out things that no church has ever bothered to tell me. I find it curious that churches still keep laymen in ignorance"

but i suppose if they did full disclosure, they would lose many of their sheeple that they keep in ignorance as they are easier to be led that way.

"Did Matthew write the book of Matthew? What about the other Gospels?"

they just did a whole show about this on the History Channel.  not a single gospel was written during Jesus' lifetime.  most were written down some several hundred years later.  they were supposedly passed word to mouth before that, but anyone who has played a game of telephone can tell you that it doesn't take long for the original words to be twisted and changed.

CC Miranda, Very well said. Of all the characters in the Gospels, Matthew is the only apostle (?) who did not leave some sort of historical trail we can investigate. I discussed this issue with a man who had gone through 6 years of Catholic seminary study.

my uncle is a catholic priest.  we used to discuss these things all the time.  i for one know i don't have that blind faith that would allow me to believe that the bible is accurate and should be used to beat others over the head with.

having grown up in a catholic household, we were taught right and wrong and a lot of it was taught through the "lessons" in the bible, but do i need a book to tell me what i know in my heart is right and wrong?  no.  I also accept that others may need that kind of a crutch to get them through their existance, but so often i see it twisted and warped into hatred that people feel is justifiable since there was a sentence in an outdated book that someone took out of context.

This has GOT to be the most hysterically funny thread I've EVER read on Gather.

you haven't read much then have you?  cause there are so much funnier things out there, although i do admit that the blinders of some do make for much amusement.

Chuck,

Now, I have always found you to be fairly intelligent in many things, but I hope you are not being spiteful just because of somebody's choice of beliefs. If you had said something like CC, maybe I wouldn't have felt as insulted, having started the article. I know there are many close minded statements here, but unlike the far right, I believe in everyone having the right to say what they believe.

The Codex Sinaticus is now online. It is the oldest (1600 years) known complete collection of the books of the present day bible plus a few bonuses. See the story at http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/index.html. See the Bible at http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/.

If you want to read all of it brush up on your greek.

Thanks for such an interesting topic of discussion Lisa! I consider myself christian still, even though I no longer follow a specific set of religious "rules". Although I think there's some great wisdom contained in the bible, I don't believe it's the LITERAL word of god. The bible was written by man, and has been translated so many times; with so many different versions- how can anyone say definatively which translation/version is right?

I think the concepts of satan, and god being angry, vengeful; ect- were created by man- in order to control people through fear. What better way to control people through fear, than to convince them they're going to burn in hell when they die; or god is going to bring a wrath down upon them? God is a powerful force, in everybody; and everything- the idea that somebody has to follow certain rules or rituals, to experience that connection- is man made. If somebody feels joy making a positive impact, on someone else's life; is that not feeling connected to god? If somebody stops to appreciate the beauty they see around them, isn't that also feeling a connection to god? It just makes no sense to me, that such a powerful and loving force; would bring terrible wraths down on people- or make them suffer for eternity after they die- or be jealous, vengeful; Ect.

There is a vast difference between the exoteric mis-understandings of "orthodoxy" in these matters ... as compared to the esoteric understandings of the mystics ... the difference often as that between night and day ... thus orthodoxy condemns the other as heretical, blasphemous, and of the occult ... what little they know ... and ultimately being their own loss.

I respect your right to your beliefs as well my friend, and understand your feelings in this matter! Thank you for stopping in to comment!

I have begun to read the bible, It is interesting and thought provoking. I am just finishing the old testament.

Please learn all you can about its construction and purposes, intended for various periods of early human civilization. That is why EVERY Biblical prediction will eventually come true, and NO Biblical prediction will EVER come true.
Perhaps you will help bring an end to the ignorance. The Bible is the most mis-quoted book in history. It is frustrating that the most reasoned discourse on any subject matter is often brought to a close when someone suddenly calls on the Bible as the highest authority. Unfortunately, many people need to believe it was literally written by God, who dropped it from a cloud one day, then died. It has some beautiful things buried in its pages, but learning about the way it was edited and redacted is a little like watching sausage made. You will question how much of it is digestible. Some people put all their faith in it because, if it isn't from God, then what do we have left that is?
I have heard it said that the best way to approach the Bible is to consider what it ISN'T. It is not a two-by-four to selectively use to beat reason and common good to death.
Many years ago, I heard to DJs on the radio arguing about the proper way to eat an ear of sweet corn...either from side-to-side across the cob, or around the circumference. The argument ended when one of the men supported his side by saying "It says so in the Old Testament." I imagine that more than one listener scurried to look it up.