McBell
Unbound
So then what is the problem?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bible contradictions
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So did we, when I was a Lutheran:
Sure it was. The Bible tells its readers the history of the creation of the universe including how long it took and in what order things first appeared . It also contains a cosmology complete with a domed, fixed, flat earth resting on pillars. The fact that it has all been disproven doesn't mean that those words were not intended or believed literally at one time. They still are by some today.
"The next time believers tell you that "separation of church and state" does not appear in our founding document, tell them to stop using the word "trinity." The word "trinity" appears nowhere in the bible. Neither does Rapture, or Second Coming, or Original Sin. If they are still unfazed then add Omniscience, Omnipresence, Supernatural, Transcendence, Afterlife, Deity, Divinity, Theology, Monotheism, Missionary, Immaculate Conception, Christmas, Christianity, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Methodist, Catholic, Pope, Cardinal, Catechism, Purgatory, Penance, Transubstantiation, Excommunication, Dogma, Chastity, Unpardonable Sin, Infallibility, Inerrancy, Incarnation, Epiphany, Sermon, Eucharist, the Lord's Prayer, Good Friday, Doubting Thomas, Advent, Sunday School, Dead Sea, Golden Rule, Moral, Morality, Ethics, Patriotism, Education, Atheism, Apostasy, Conservative (Liberal is in), Capital Punishment, Monogamy, Abortion, Pornography, Homosexual, Lesbian, Fairness, Logic, Republic, Democracy, Capitalism, Funeral, Decalogue, or Bible." - Dan Barker
Nor abortion nor same sex marriage.
Last edited:
I can assure you, I wrote every word of it. Every. Word.
It is traditional Catholic belief, so I find it offensive when you call it "propaganda".
Regarding your comment about the word Catholic being in the New Testament, apparently you did not read my first reply. So, again, Catholics follow Second Temple Judaism's belief in both tradition and scripture. St Paul mentions holding fast to traditions in the first Christian documents.
Protestants discarded tradition, and so rely on scripture alone, and hence the debates about biblical contradictions.
Catholic tradition embraces the word Catholic.
Last edited:
Sorry, but these things are facts, not boasting. You can disagree, try and pick it the argument apart, but the central facts remain. A church called Catholic in 115 AD, less than a century after the crucifixion. A bishop in Rome giving orders to the church of Corinth in 95 AD. This turned into what Celsus - the Christian hater who wrote a venomous attack on the church - called The Great Church, a worldwide interconnected group led by bishops.
If there wasn't a Catholic, or Great Church, how could there be all those Church Councils? Here is the list ( yes, this I did copy)t:
- the Council of Rome of 155
- the Council of Rome of 193
- the Council of Ephesus of 193
- the Council of Carthage of 251
- the Council of Iconium of 258[13]
- the Council of Antioch of 264
- the Councils of Arabia of 246–247
- the Synod of Elvira of 306
- the Council of Carthage of 311
- the Synod of Neo-Caesarea of c. 314
- the Synod of Ancyra of 314
- the Synod of Arles of 314
Of course the Orthodox Church began with the apostles. That's because it was fully part of the Catholic Church. One Great Church founded by the apostles. No other church existed in the beginning,. The Orthodox Church was founded by the apostles because, as part of the Catholic Church, it could claim this.
As for the Orthodox Church itself, it is inextricably bound to the foundation of Constantinople. There couldn't be an Orthodox bishop in Constantinople until it had been founded.
Josephus said the Jews of his time were divided between the Sadducees, the Pharisees, and the Essenes. There were also a number of Zealots, but I am unsure as to whether or not they could be called a party in. Judaism, although Josephus seemed to add them.
Rabbinic Judaism developed after the Jewish War which ended with the burning of the temple, which meant that all the long lineages listed the temple were gone. So, no more Levitical priests. Without the lists of lineages the priesthood was destroyed.
What was left was Rabbinic Judaism, which developed mostly from the Pharisees.
Are there any Jews out there with much better information than mine?
Please know that I'm more than a little familiar with the above. But your outline does little to explain what you meant by:
Without having to write this myself, I am copying some of the most usual references:
297) …What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have passed on to the people a great many observances handed down by their fathers, which are not written down in the law of Moses.PHILO 10.2.2 THE SPECIAL LAWS IV 143-150
From Josephus: (Antiquities) "What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have passed on to the people a great many observances handed down by their fathers, which are not written down in the law of Moses. For this reason the Sadducees reject them and say that we are to consider to be obligatory only those observances which are in the written word, but need not observe those which are derived from the tradition of our forefathers."
(297)
From Philo: (The Special Laws) "Another most admirable injunction is that nothing should be added or taken away, but all the laws originally ordained should be kept unaltered just as they were...For customs are unwritten laws, the decisions approved of men of old, not inscribed on monuments nor nor on leaves of paper which moth destroys, but on the souls...Praise cannot be duly given to one who obeys the written laws, since he acts under the admonition of restraint...But who faithfully observes the unwritten deserves commendation, since the virtue which he displays is freely willed" iv 143-150.JOSEPHUS AntiQUITIES 10.2.1 XIII,297
297...What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have passed on to the people a great many observances handed down by their fathers, which are not written down in the law of Moses.
Philo, The Special Laws IV, 143-150: Written and Unwritten Law
For customs are unwritten laws, the decisions approved by men of old, not inscribed on monuments nor on leaves of paper which the moth destroys, but on the souls of those who are partners in the same citizenship. For children ought to inherit from their parents, besides their property, ancestral customs which they were reared in and have lived with even from the cradle, and not despise them because they have been handed down without written record. Praise cannot be duly given to one who obeys the written laws, since he acts under the admonition of restraint and the fear of punishment. But he who faithfully observes the unwritten deserves commendation, since the virtue which he displays is freely willed.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josephus not only characterizes the Pharisaic ordinances as 'unwritten', but as 'handed down by the fathers' (ek pateron diadoke )."6 "A similar expression paradosin ton presbuteron (traditions of the elders) is used in the New Testament to designate the Pharisaic oral traditions. [Mk.7,3.5 (Mt. 15,2); cf. Galatians 1,14 and Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, IV, 22,8 who refers to the agrafos paradosis (unwritten traditions) of the Jews.]"7
Perhaps it's my fault, so let me ask it a bit differently. You say:
https://www.religiousforums.com/goto/post?id=8506807
" ... Catholics follow Second Temple Judaism's belief in both tradition and scripture."
" ... Catholics follow Second Temple Judaism's belief in both tradition and scripture."
Are you telling us that Catholic beliefs angels angels and the resurrection of the dead align with those of the Sadducees or the Pharisees, and what Essene rules, customs, theology. and beliefs are followed by the church?
No, of course the earliest Christians didn't take on every belief of every single group of Jews. Many groups held diametrically opposing views. Furthermore there was a even a question of which books formed their scripture.
The Sadducees didn't believe we would die and go to heaven or hell. They were wrong. The Essenes believed, if the fragmentary documents can be assessed correctly, in resurrection from the dead. They were right.
You believe they were wrong.
Nice summary of the various councils ... what we are looking at is the various church leader coming together - basically saying hey .. how are you guys doing it over there ... take notes and move from there..
One problem with the assessment however is that the Orthodox Church begins with the Apostal Paul -- and not with the Apostle-Disciple Peter .. and all the others who were the Church of Jerusalem. A Church which Paul was not part of .. doing is own thing .. and they had a couple of meetings .. but Paul is not part of the Club..
This is the first big scism in christianity .. followers of Paul .. Followers of the Church of Jerusalem .. Gentiles on one side .. Jewish Christians on the other. The Orthodox Church is comprised of all the Greek cities Paul set up churches at... as per the names of many of his letter in the Bible .. Thesseloniki the city exists to this day. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD the Church of Jerusalem disappears .. Jews are second class citizens after that and the Christians avoid them to .. the Later Gospels refleclting the anti Jew sentiment of the time and of the Church.
by the time we get to 150 -- it is all the Church of Paul .. this is the Orthodox Church .. and essentially the Catholic Church which just means universal .. a term which I don't think comes into use until Constantine .. when at the time there was kind of an eastern and western blocks of Christianity .. which were unified until ~ 1000AD .. and we call the West Catholic and the East Orthodox .. is my understanding.
The apocryphal books exclude themselves because of being out of harmony with the harmonious 66 Bible books.
The Sadducees ( sad you see ) because they did Not believe in a resurrection - Luke 20:27
Even righteous dead Jesus went to hell. Biblical hell that is: the temporary grave for the sleeping dead - Acts 2:27
Dead Jesus was in the grave (Biblical hell) for parts of three days.
Jesus knew he would be in a 'sleep-like state' while dead because both Jesus and the OT teach sleep in death.
- Psalms 6:5; Psalms 13:3; Psalms 115:17; Isaiah 38:18; Ecclesiastes 9:5; John 11:11-14
Jesus was the first to be resurrected, later some will have a first or earlier resurrection - Rev. 20:6
The majority of mankind to have a happy-and-healthy physical resurrection on Resurrection Day.
Resurrection Day meaning: Jesus' coming Millennium-Long Day governing over Earth in righteousness.
This is when ' enemy death ' will be No more on Earth - 1st Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8
I was speaking about the first Christians, didn't you get that?
I believe you have repeated the claims of Walter Bauer, now considered refuted.
Peter and Paul were both executed in Rome, and in Rome there weren't two churches. There was one. And by 95 AD the Bishop of Rome sent a letter to Corinth, admonishing their behavior. He speaks with great reverence of Peter and Paul and thinks of them as founders of the one church in Rome.
The first time the word Catholic was used to describe the Catholic Church as the great church over all others was in 115 AD by Bishop Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius wrote letters to many cities, all of them in agreement.
Here is the full quote from Ignatius:
. See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there, let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. ((Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8).
Never heard of Bower -- and the claim that Paul was not much a part of the Church of Jerusalem .. that gentile christians and Jewish Christians .. Judeo Christians were different sects is simply church History - no idea where you are getting this "One church Idea" That Peter and Paul were executed in Rome does not show there was not two Traditions .. call them the same church if you like .. but two very different sects .. the first two books Mark and Matt a function of the Judeo Tradition Luke Acts John the Pauline Tradition .. along with most of the rest of the Bible which is all Paul.
This is not something debated in serious circles .. A good example of one difference is adherence to Jewish Law .. but hearken unto James 2..
James Brother of Jesus is speaking to early Christians are preaching some "Faith Alone" ideology .. James has no use for this ideology calling this ideology Foolish .. Usless .. echoing Jesus who says the same at the end of the Sermon on the mount Matt 7. The emphasis on works puting one right with God .. no free pass through judgement.
Here is your post with emphasis added ...
I was simply noting that they were wrong / they were right claim facts rather than propose articles of faith. Didn't you get that?