The Bible (Page 10)

Wow. That is interesting. I just reread 1 Cor 15, in light of what you've said.  It takes on a new layer of meaning for me:

3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures;

4 that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures;

5 that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.

6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

7 After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Thanks for that!

I've heard that the best answer to the question, "Which is the best translation of the Bible"

Is, "The one you read".

Even with all of the different languages and translations, Scripture really does come alive in a way that no other written word does for me. 

I think "talk to Father" is a great answer!

Here are some more thoughts.

Go through Part 1 Article 3 of the new Catechism of the Catholic Church. It covers Sacred Scripture.

Here's an online copy. Scroll down about half way to get to Article 3. Maybe read through it first and then translate it into language for a 10yo?

Also, I haven't read either of these two books, but I recommend the authors.

Did Adam and Eve Have Belly Buttons? by Matthew Pinto

and

Prove It: Catholic Teen Bible by Amy Welborn

I've read one of the books from Amy's Prove It series. Highly recommend her as an author for young people. She's really great at translating difficult theological concepts for a teenage audience.  She's a great blogger.  Here's her current blog.  And her site with contact info.  Amy's a wealth of information about how to provide solid catechesis for young people.

It's great that you're doing this for your daughter!

MikeColorado - 2009-05-29 10:51 PM

wurkit_gurl - 2009-05-29 2:47 PM

Bripod - 2009-05-29 5:41 PM

dontracy - 2009-05-29 4:11 PM I've heard that the best answer to the question, "Which is the best translation of the Bible"

Is, "The one you read NASB".

Fixed that for you! haha! In all seriousness, though, I agree. Once I started actually reading it, instead of making generalizations and false claims about it, I became a believer. It truly is sharper than any two-edged sword... I'd continue the verse but then we'd get into a debate about whether soul and spirit are separate or the same

Me too - I've mentioned it before, I'm pretty sure, but for me, one of the most convincing things was actually sitting down and reading it. And the weird thing was, I felt compelled to read it. I started with the Gospels and no matter how much I told myself that I was just going to read it with no preconceived notions either way, as I read it, all I could think to myself was "Wow. This is the truth".

Any chance you read the Koran or the Book of Mormom with that belief? Would you read those two books thinking they are the words of god? Did you read the The Odessy believing those stories we real?

You are attempting to twist my words around to suit your own devices, which I don't appreciate in the slightest. Firstly, the Odyssey is a work of fiction. It is not considered a religious text. Secondly, I didn't always believe that the Bible was the true Word of God. I thought it was a book of nice morality stories, nothing more. And while I don't have time to get into the whole thing here, various events in my life were starting to point me in the right direction - I look back now and see that it was God calling to me, and in that time, I was drawn to the Bible, a book I had previous had no interest in. I can't really explain it except that I was compelled to read it and I don't think that was a random act. I went into reading it telling myself that it was just a book, it wasn't real, a work of fiction. You don't know me, but if you did you'd know that I have always been a very rational person, that I thought that someone like me, who knew better, would never fall victim something as silly as Christianity. And the fact that this book STILL had such an impact on me spoke volumes. I could NOT deny the truth of the text and I absolutely will not. I was not drawn to the Koran or the Book of Mormon simply because the Bible is the Truth.  

It wasn't as if I opened the bible one day, read a passage and immediately said "oh, I believe in Jesus now!". It was a process. God revealed His truth to me through the Bible, and that was a big part of it, but it wasn't all at once, and I did a lot of other reading, talking to people, having people pray with me, etc.

I read the Koran for a short period of time between the years I was an atheist and when I reverted to Christianity. And no, it didn't draw me in the same way, even though I was spiritually open to it.  Haven't read the book of Mormon.

I have read The Iliad and The Odyssey, both a couple of times. I love them. However, the more I read them, the more they appear to be clearly myth, and meant to be myth. 

The Bible is different. The more I read scripture, the more I see a wholeness to it, with that wholeness being Jesus Christ Himself. Doesn't matter what page you open the Bible to, it is all pointing to and opening up to the reality of Christ.  It is a very strange and mysterious thing once you begin to experience it.  Christianity isn't a religion of a book, but rather the religion of a person, that person being Christ.  Still, reading scripture does help bring the person of Christ alive in the life of many people.

I hated Christianity for a long time. Reading scripture began to open my heart to it.

Can you site and author and document that claims to show that Paul never knew of an historical Jesus?

Thanks,Mike. Can you either unpack that in your own words, or cite the specific piece about Paul that you previously mentioned? 

There are books about a lot of things. Just because there's a book, doesn't make it true.

You know, it's not news that there were cultures that had myths and rituals that are similar to things that developed in Christianity.  It's perfectly consistent to the meaning of Christ.

For example, take the notion of the afterlife within ancient Egyptian culture.  There's nothing there that would negate the truth of the Resurrection. God could certainly have written on the hearts of people in such a way as to have them develop such similar cultural phenomenon out of a universal yearning.

In Christ though, all of these things are brought to perfection.

Well for one, look to what happened in the Greek world itself.

It was the Greek philosophers who developed so many of the tools of reason. With these tools they discovered the existence of what is called by various terms, All Being, The Logos, The Word, Ens.  This discovery smashed the system of mythical local gods that they had.  The Greek philosophers such as Aristotle were considered a-theists.

Along comes Paul talking about a new god. They ask Paul who it was. Was it Zeus. Was it Apollo.

No. Paul answers that it was Logos, The Word, All Being.

The beginning of the Gospel of John speaks of Christ in this same way, calling Him The Word.

This they understood right away.  The Greek world was transformed into faith through the truth found in reason.  Christ was proposed to them rather than being imposed, and the proposal made rational sense.

Well, probably because he never knew Jesus before the resurection.  That's not news.

I didn't read through the whole piece you linked to, but I did read the beginning of the section "The Gospel About the Son". The author seems to be troubled by this from Paul:

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised (or, announced) beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who . . .

And then seems to claim that since Paul is talking about God promising the  gospel, rather than the person of Jesus that is shows that Paul thinks that Jesus didn't exist?

Really? That's the crux of his argument. Does the rest of the piece rest on such a flimsy argument?

I did a search on the piece and could find no mention of Peter, aside from the Letter of Peter.  Should go back and search for the other Apostles.  Does the author not know that Paul lived in community with other Apostles and decisples who actually knew Jesus?  Again, to be fair I'd need to read the whole piece, but he doesn't seem to bother with this aspect at all.

This seems like Dan Brown Da Vinci Codesque argument. Good enough to sell a book, but that's about all.

Mike, here is another example missing from your author's argument. 1st Corinthians 11 23-27

23 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread

24 and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me."

25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me."

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 

How exactly is this not referring to the historical person of Jesus?

You'd be surprised. I didn't expect any of it to make any sense. I mean, you're right - what DOES make sense about a guy who was born from a woman who never had sex, died and was buried and then rose again? But the more I read the Bible, talked to people and read other stuff, when I looked at the whole picture, it made very logical sense. Again, it's a process as to how I came to these conclusions and it's a little different for everyone. One book that really helped put a lot of it into perspective was C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity".

And part of it is simply the "faith" factor. I don't like saying that I believe "just because I do", but I can tell you that aside from all of my reading and questioning and talking to people, there was "something" that happened. Not exactly a "feeling", but it was something unlike any other feeling or sense I'd had before. We are generally not to trust our human feelings and emotions because they are not rock solid and are open to change. However, this different "feeling" is not something I can describe in a way that someone who hasn't experienced it would understand. A "presence" would be close, but even that doesn't quite work. And I'm sure people experience God in slightly different ways. I don't see angels or hear voices. Actually I'm terrible at discerning what God is trying to tell me, because I'm still a "baby" Christian. But I can tell you for sure that there have been moments since, at church or wherever, that I've felt God's presence in a place. And I really can't describe it. And until it happens to someone, it doesn't make any sense.

I know that last part is a little bit of a side track, but it's still important. Intellectually I "get" the whole Christianity thing. From a logical point of view, it DOES make sense. But this experiential aspect is what keeps me from thinking that I'm a lunatic.

the bible is the inspired word of god. it was written thru men to the people of the time, to be read in context by us. the things that happened in the bible are real and literal, but then they are also more than literal. the people of the time of the bible understood things very differently than we do.

does the bible have errors: what do you mean by errors? if you mean factual, contextual errors, than most likely not. you can follow many of the stories in the bible and trace them to a major events of historical time, and many of the stories are documented in other places than the bible. jesus was very real and very alive. so were paul and peter and john. they have all been recorded elsewhere in history as real, living, breathing people that walked the earth.

did the church add or delete as they saw fit: the church of the fifth and fourth century canonnized the bible. the greek word canon literally means measurement or measuring stick. the church at the time, under constantine, took all of the accounts of the jesus story, read and reread them, and "measured them". there are other accounts of the jesus story, such as the gospel of peter and the gospel of judas. the church canonnized the bible based on authority of the letter, ie: who wrote it, how long after the event it took place, how accurate it was,what it meant in context, the message, etc. then they chose the books that held the most authority and put them together as the New Testament. a bunch of jewish scholars and preists canonnized the Old tetament way before any of the NT happened. so in other words, yes and no. they created a book from a group of letters, and chose the ones that held the most authority.

God's hand was and had to be guiding this process. as creator god, as elohim, that is his nature. he created us in his very image, he created us out of his wonderful and abounding love, and he (if you want to put a human, finite label on the deity god [one of the many problems of organized religion IMO, but thats a whole nother can of worms]) only wants the absolute best for his creation, us. that means giving us the best way to learn about him and his passionate love story with his creation.

my thoughts on the bible: the bible is gods passionate love story with his creation, and the process of him bringing his creation back into perfect relationship with him.